Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-58 based on current draft

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:22:07 -0700
• To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <55B8008F.2020602@gmail.com>

I am not in favour of exempting certain properties from closed shape
considerations.  If rdf:type and sh:nodeShape are exempted, why not
rdfs:label, for example?

peter


On 07/27/2015 05:11 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> ISSUE-58 [1] is about how closed shapes shall be defined. I propose to close
> this ticket by adopting the currently drafted (simple) syntax and semantics:
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/#ClosedShapeConstraint
> 
> Holger
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/58
> 

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 22:22:40 UTC