- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:56:09 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
It appears to me that the current spec fairly strongly implies that literals can be focus nodes, as sh:valueShape validates its shape against all values of its property for the current focus node. This make all such values be focus nodes, and these values can be literals. peter On 09/24/2015 06:57 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-90 stating that literals can also serve as focus nodes. > > Holger > > > On 9/21/2015 10:44, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? >> [SHACL Spec] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/90 >> >> Raised by: Holger Knublauch >> On product: SHACL Spec >> >> The spec is vague on that topic, but we need to clarify whether the focus >> node can also be a literal. My assumption from the SPIN days is that they >> would only be IRIs and blank nodes, but now I see no real reason for such a >> restriction. But I have not tried it out yet, so I may be missing some >> consequences. Does anyone see problems? >> >> A use case would be to allow sh:valueShape to apply to literals too, e.g. to >> check its own datatype or length, e.g. for qualified constraints. >> >> If we change this, then >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AllObjectsScope should be generalized. >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 01:56:48 UTC