Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91)

On 10/01/2015 03:24 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/30/15 7:08 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I vote +1 for the proposal in
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0162.html
>> and any proposal in accordance with  "I believe if something is left
>> unspecified then it should count as
>> unconstrained."  in that message.
> 
> What is the / is there a / interaction between unconstrained and the use of
> closed shapes? I'm thinking of properties with no declared constraints, and
> whether there is a different result with open or closed shapes. Conceptually
> there is a big difference in my mind - with an open shape, the property with
> no declared constraints is no different from a property that is not included
> in the shape definition; with a closed shape, the property with no declared
> constraints is an optional property, and does not trigger a validation error.
> 
> kc

I do not see that closed shapes impact this in any way.

I view the closed shape construct as a shorthand for
1/ Look at the syntax of the shape and find all the properties of top-level
property constraints.
2/ Add a constraint to the shape that says that these are the only properties
that can have values.

So, yes, a vacuous top-level property constraint then does have some affect,
but there is no relationship between this affect and the above statement of
principle.



I would find it cleaner if the closed shape construct didn't work the way that
it does, but that is a separate matter.



peter

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:48:45 UTC