- From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:54:13 +0000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
shapes-ISSUE-94 (hsolbrig): Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics [SHACL Spec] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/94 Raised by: Harold Solbrig On product: SHACL Spec The SHACL specification doesn't currently differentiate the core semantics requirements for any SHACL implementation for the RDF specific syntax. As an example, sh:allowedValues identifies a set of RDF Terms that constrain the possible targets of a given predicate. The fact that this is a set and the fact that they must be RDF Terms would appear to be true no matter what syntax is used. The next sentence in the document states that this set must be represented as "well-formed instances of rdf:List", which would make sense in (some) RDF representations of SHACL, but would have no meaning in other situations. Would it make sense to create a style or some sort of identifier in the specification that would allow readers to differentiate universal requirements from those that are only applicable in RDF syntax?
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 20:54:15 UTC