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

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