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

Re: clarified and updated formal objection to SHACL property path syntax

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 16:38:34 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-Id: <E6E12B21-EDFA-4230-81D0-7ECEFA9870B5@topquadrant.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
It is certainly easy to write shapes that violate SHACL syntax rules (or any other syntax in the world)  if one is writing them in a notepad or a similar tool that is not aware of the  syntax. I don’t think this is not the point you are making when you say “user can easily write” or  is it? 

SHACL specification clearly says that such paths result in ill-formed shapes. Given this, why would users expect them not to be ill formed?  Especially, if SHACL-SHACL could checks for adherence to these syntax rules and raise the violation. 


> On May 5, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> ex:s2 a sh:PropertyShape ;
>  sh:targetNode ex:i ;
>  sh:path [ rdfs:comment "inverse of ex:p" ;
>    	    sh:inversePath ex:p ] ;
>  sh:class ex:C .
> Users can easily write paths like the one above and will expect shapes
> containing paths like these to have a well-defined meaning in SHACL.

Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 20:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:50 UTC