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

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 <> 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