- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:16:48 +0200
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Hi! FWIW, at last week's Permissions and Obligations Expression WG F2F meeting Phil Archer pointed out that[1]: --- phila: do you have classes and properties with the same name only differ from capital and lower case? renato: yes. e.g., prohibition phila: that would not work in an international context. May be it is better to rename it to hasProhibition. --- I don't know whether that's also relevant for SHACL though. [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-poe-minutes.html#item12 --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2016-09-27 00:25, schrieb Holger Knublauch: > On 27/09/2016 6:03, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2016-09-26 >> 11:26-0700] >>> ex:ShapeWithIdenticalPath >>> a sh:shape ; >>> sh:property [ >>> sh:predicate ex:mother . >>> ] >>> sh:property [ >>> sh:path ex:mother . >>> ] . >>> >>> appears to use the wrong one. >>> >>> All occurrences of both should be checked. > > Fixed, thanks for pointing this out: > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/53710ca22ddc7db01ebf6789ec4f509e4152c712 > >>> >>> >>> It would be better not to use two names that differ only in >>> capitalization, >>> particularly for a letter where the difference can be difficult to >>> detect. >> I strongly endorse sh:hasShape for the property. I understand that >> there's also a provisional SPARQL function with this name but I'm not >> sure that's actualy a conflict given that the SPARQL function is >> supposed to be an implementation of the property. > > Eric, how is sh:shape different from, say, sh:class in this respect? > Wouldn't we then also have to rename sh:class to sh:hasClass? > > Holger
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 06:17:17 UTC