ISSUE-89: How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled?
recursion without properties
How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Peter Patel-Schneider
- Opened on:
- 2015-09-15
- Description:
- Right now
ex:s1 rdf:type sh:shape ;
sh:constraint [ a sh:AndConstraint ;
sh:shapes ( ex:s1 ) ] .
is valid SHACL. However, it is not a very useful shape.
In general, recursion between shapes where the recursion does not involve a property is not useful.
Should such shapes be allowed in SHACL? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-09-30)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-09-25)
- shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-09-15)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-89 stating that this is valid, although maybe not very useful, and will be treated consistently with how recursion is defined
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04
Display change log
