Re: qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint

On 8/02/2017 20:44, Olivier Corby wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There is no systematic definition of sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint
>>
>> This is just a "flag" that IMHO doesn't require further definitions 
>> beside the relationship with sh:qualifiedValueShape. There are syntax 
>> rules however.
>
> I think that qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint deserves a definition as all 
> other statements.

The other definitions are for constraint components. How would a 
definition for sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint look like?

Thanks,
Holger


>
>
> Olivier