- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:37:19 +0300
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2pNAxHGT6W3OUAa46=UvbBRpKy-5xj-FCpxyQDvf-wyw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Irene, We independently came up with the exact same definition for sh:equals and I already adjusted all related definition in 4.6. I also used your suggestion for the improvement of the value node definition. Thanks, Dimitris On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote: > I propose the following language: > > sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is equal to > the set of nodes that are objects of triples with the focus node as > subject and the value of sh:equals as predicate. > > > My proposal is based on the definition of a value node as: > > For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the > objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the given > property as predicate. > > > I think this definition may need to be made clearer as in: > > For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the > objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the > sh:predicate value as predicate. > > > If this change reads OK, then a similar language needs to be propagated to > all constraints in section 4.6. > > Irene > > > > On 9/28/16, 12:10 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>From the description of ISSUE-155: > > > >"[Property pair constraints] talk about an (ordered) pair of properties > >but do > >not take an (ordered) pair of properties as arguments." > > > >>From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's > >>Draft 27 > >September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl > > > >"sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of values of > >both > >properties at a given focus node must be equal." > > > >This sentence is even more incorrect now than it was when the issue was > >raised. > > > > > >It thus appears that work has not been done that has solved this issue and > >that the working group has not adequately investigated the current > >situation > >before closing ISSUE-155. > > > > > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider > >Nuance Communications > > > > > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 06:38:15 UTC