ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates?

Path bnodes

Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Holger Knublauch

Opened on:

2016-09-29

Description:

Currently we have the policy that all elements of a Path in RDF syntax may be IRI nodes, and only if a node is neither of sh:inversePath etc then a IRI is regarded as a PredicatePath. See rules 1. - 4. in

https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#path-syntax

However, this leads to complications e.g. as outlined in 2.3.5 of the current editor's draft.

I think it would be easier to have a policy that all IRI paths are counted as PredicatePaths, i.e. all complex paths such as inverse paths must be blank nodes.

This is also related to the public comment mentioned in

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0031.html

because with the new policy it would be clearer to describe how a "deep copy" is supposed to work.

Once we have made that decision, we can tackle the remaining comments from

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0035.html

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: IRC log? (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-18)
2. Re: IRC log? (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-18)
3. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-16)
4. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-15)
5. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-15)
6. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-14)
7. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-14)
8. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-13)
9. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-13)
10. Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-11)
11. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-09-29)
12. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-09-29)
13. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from eric@w3.org on 2016-09-29)
14. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-09-29)
15. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from eric@w3.org on 2016-09-29)
16. Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-09-29)
17. ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2016-09-29)
18. shapes-ISSUE-180 (Path bnodes): Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-09-29)

Related notes:

Display change log