W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:02:39 -0800
To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "<public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <cc7f4f5e-cdac-048d-51ec-1b7383ff3874@gmail.com>
This is just pulling out aspect of the interchange.

On 02/08/2017 05:31 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:

[...]

>>> On 4/02/2017 14:10, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

>>>> "sh:NodeShape is the class of node shapes and should be declared as a type
>>>> for shapes that are IRIs."
>>>> "sh:PropertyShape is the class of property shapes and should be declared as a
>>>> type for shapes that are IRIs.”

[...]

>>>> Further, there is the strong suggestion here that shapes
>>>> that are IRIs should somehow have both sh:NodeShape and sh:PropertyShape
>>>> declared as their type, which doesn't make sense at all.
> 
> There was never an intent to say that IRIs should have both sh:NodeShape an
> sh:PropertyShape as their type. On contrary, the spec said they these were
> disjoint classes. What caused you to come to this conclusion?

See the part of the message retained above.

It does appear to be the case that there are quite a few aspects of the SHACL
document that do not match the intentions of the working group.  The working
group should be carefully examining the document to ensure that this is not
the case.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 02:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC