Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1

Holger,

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> I have updated the draft* to make a specific simple suggestion on how to
> resolve this issue.
>
> 1) sh:valueType. This case was already handled.

I think we need to let user decide is they want the rdfs:subClassOf*
expression added to the property path. That is why I suggested we have
two properties sh:valueType and sh:valueClass. Your current behaviour
corresponds to what I called sh:valueClass. For the case of matching
against just rdf:type, we have the escape hatch of treating rdf:type
as just another property, and constraining it's allowed value to be
just the desired type. However, we'd need a way to do that for what
you call validateNode.

> 3) Per-query entailment. I have added a section 12.4
> Arthur, I have seen you suggested sh:assumes for the same job, but I believe
> this is SPARQL-specificEntailment applies to RDF, not just SPARQL.

It is true that SPARQL 1.1 defined a set of IRIs to define entailment
regimes, but they make sense for any constraint language, including
JS. The entailment regime determines what triples the constraint sees.

-- Arthur

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 18:35:07 UTC