I’m building constraints for form building, and I'm wondering the best way to constrain a PropertyShape to say for a given property not only link to individuals of a particular class type, but also individuals from a particular scheme. For example, in the following we want to use the property
<hol...@topquadrant.com<mailto:hol...@topquadrant.com>> wrote: Yes that should work in principle. If it doesn't then we may have a bug. Have you tried it? Holger On 1/12/2017 7:32, Steven Michael Folsom wrote: One last question (hopefully) about Nested Forms. Is nesting a form wit
t user enter city and street, automatically creating (behind the scenes) a resource of the type :Address and building all the right connections. Regards, Irene On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Steven Michael Folsom <sf...@cornell.edu<http://cornell.edu/>> wrote: I’m wondering if anyone
I’m wondering if anyone on the list would have advice/examples for defining SHACL to follow best practices for embedded/nested forms. Some of the questions I’ve come up with so far are: * PropertyGroups and PropertyShapes can have order. Can embedded Forms take an order position among
I realize the examples are not normative, but could the example given at https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#AndConstraintComponent be stated without the blank nodes? E.g. ex:SuperShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:property ex:SuperShapePropertyShape .
I’m sure this is been asked before on the list, perhaps by me, but does anybody know of a SHACL to HTML conversion tool? Similar to LODE, but optimized for SHACL axioms? Thanks, Steven Steven Folsom Metadata Librarian Cornell University @sf433 -- You received this message because you are
I would be interested to be able to look at any implementations where Validation shapes are compiled with non-Validation shapes to build Forms, where that the validation axioms are maintained in separate shapes from non-validation (UI) shapes? Is anyone doing this? We’ve been considering it
We aren’t (yet) using SHACL for validation, but we ARE using it for form building for data that we want to comply/validate with our data goals. So maybe the answer is, “kind of”. A next step will be to decouple our form semantics from data validation semantics. Shouldn’t be too hard. Thanks,