- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:11:30 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "<public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
OK, I now understand what you meant. Agree, these sentences (no longer in the document) were indeed poorly worded. > On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 02:12:10 UTC