Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
#212: Added sh:ShapeClass #254
base: gh-pages
Are you sure you want to change the base?
#212: Added sh:ShapeClass #254
Changes from 1 commit
5224879
4600436
d6e70f5
e4758a5
544e336
b3fd3a7
8daf6ee
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not true.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But the triple sh:ShapeClass rdf:type sh:ShapeClass is explicitly stated in the TTL file:
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/254/files#diff-e7ad12ee6ccf9c41e835d5d12955c739ac6ead85384719f9a3cd0127f7a1c5fdR58
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the textual definition, the sentence
has two readings: as part of the definition and being an authoritative statement, or as stating a consequence of the first part. Replace the preceeding
.
with;
and it does make it part of the definition.("an rdf:type" - it has unrelated ones as well)
The current 3rd sentence, which is definitely not adding to the definition, and is stating a consequence of "SHACL instance":
could be moved to after the textual definition box so the definition box is all definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why should
sh:ShapeClass rdf:type sh:ShapeClass
be true?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I read it - because the definition says it is.
If it is the other reading where
sh:ShapeClass rdf:type sh:ShapeClass
is an implication, it does not need to be in the definition box. I don't see the implication path that concludes that fact but maybe I've missed it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, what about I just remove that sentence? We do not make these assertions explicit in the spec of other things (e.g. we don't say that sh:NodeShape rdf:type rdfs:Class. This information is present in the sh: namespace TTL and that's probably good enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have removed the offending sentence and made sh:ShapeClass a rdfs:Class in the TTL file as this was not really necessary. I hope this addresses the concern here and will ask for another review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@HolgerKnublauch --
Are you saying it is a natural conclusion from the rest of SHACL? What path leads to that?
If on the other hand, it is a necessary additional requirement about
sh:ShapeClass
then it should be in the definition. (i.e the definition should be complete and self-contained without the namespace document.)Concretely - what requires
sh:ShapeClass rdf:type sh:ShapeClass
to work?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nothing really, so I have taken it out and made it rdfs:Class only. Maybe our messages crossed paths.