ISSUE-224: Can we improve the language around the use of rdf:types for shapes
Improved shape type definitions
Can we improve the language around the use of rdf:types for shapes
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL - Core
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- 2017-02-05
- Description:
- See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Feb/0001.html the explanation of how to use rdf:types of shapes could be improved.
Suggested changes:
Remove:
- Its subclasses sh:NodeShape and sh:PropertyShape can be used to represent node and property shapes, respectively.
- sh:NodeShape is the class of node shapes and should be declared as a type for shapes that are IRIs. However, the presence of any rdf:type triple does not determine whether a node is treated as a node shape or not.
- sh:PropertyShape is the class of property shapes and should be declared as a type for shapes that are IRIs. However, the presence of any rdf:type triple does not determine whether a node is treated as a property shape or not.
Add:
- It is recommended, but not required, for a property shape to be declared as a SHACL instance of sh:PropertyShape.
- It is recommended, but not required, for a node shape to be declared as a SHACL instance of sh:NodeShape. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- shapes-ISSUE-224 (Improved shape type definitions): Can we improve the language around the use of rdf:types for shapes [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2017-02-05)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: CLOSE issue-224 by deleting two instances of "However, the presence of any rdf:type triple does not determine whether a node is treated as a node shape or not."; changing "should" to "is recommended, but not required," in the sh:NodeShape and sh:PropertyShape definitions; and by adding rdf:type statements to most if not all examples
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-shapes-minutes.html
Display change log
