Re: shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]

What should the behavior be: Should it require the rdf:type triple? That 
would make it easier, e.g. to distinguish Shapes from constraints. And 
other languages like OWL also require rdf:type triples in nested classes 
(owl:Restriction in owl:intersectionOf etc [1]). But then OTOH it's 
another triple that bloats the syntax.

For now I have added the type triple:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/21f4b09e2a40eeedcca813b3b2d7cab374dbc6f4

Thanks for pointing this out.

Holger

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Boolean


On 19/04/2016 2:33, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/151
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> ex:SuperShape
>  a sh:Shape ;
>  sh:property [
>   sh:predicate ex:property ;
>   sh:minCount 1 ;
>  ] .
>
> ex:ExampleAndShape
>  a sh:Shape ;
>  sh:constraint [
>   sh:and (
>    ex:SuperShape
>    [
>     sh:property [
>      sh:predicate ex:property ;
>      sh:maxCount 1 ;
>     ]
>    ]
>   )
>  ] .
>
> does not provide a type for the anonymous shape
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 00:57:45 UTC