W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: on literals as shapes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:08:38 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <18051df1-b3dd-843d-b5d5-f5050bb0167c@gmail.com>
Is this the official position of the W3C RDF Data Shapes Working Group?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/27/2016 04:02 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Since that "shape" would not have any constraints (as it cannot be the subject
> of any triple), nothing would happen.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 28/09/2016 8:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> So this is legal SHACL then?  What happens if this shape is used in SHACL?
>>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
>> On 09/27/2016 03:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> The rdfs:range of sh:shape is sh:Shape, and the "Value Type" is sh:Shape, too.
>>> None of these enforce formal syntactic constraints. We could add a sh:nodeKind
>>> restriction to sh:shape in the SHACL.ttl file, but haven't done so for other
>>> properties either.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/09/2016 4:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> It appears to me that
>>>>
>>>> [prefix declarations]
>>>>
>>>> s:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ;
>>>>     sh:shape 7 .
>>>>
>>>> is a syntactically correct shapes graph.
>>>>
>>>> Is this so?  If not, what makes it not be so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>> Nuance Communications
>>>>
>>>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 23:09:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC