- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:16:58 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "<public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
It's not just that they were poorly worded. They contained strong suggestions that were separately incorrect and were together ludicrous. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 02/08/2017 06:11 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > 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 02:17:35 UTC