Re: on value

I have added a clarification for this case:

I do believe it was rather redundant though because the definition of 
"value" already implied the existence of a subject.


On 27/02/2017 2:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> In several places in the SHACL document there is wording like "Every value
> of sh:shapesGraph is an IRI" with "value" linking back to the definition of
> property values and paths.  However, value is defined there on an RDF term
> and a property, not on a single RDF term.
> There needs to be a suitable definition of value added to support these
> uses.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications

Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 06:33:42 UTC