Re: shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec]

Since I didn't hear other opinions, I have applied the change to the 
draft document and corresponding Turtle file.

Thanks,
Holger


On 4/2/2015 16:34, Simon Steyskal wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Could you confirm this works for you, Simon?
>
> Exactly what I had in mind!
>
> thx, simon
>
> ---
> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>
> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>
> Am 2015-04-02 08:30, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
>> I'd be happy to change this to an rdf:List of shapes. An example of
>> that would look like:
>>
>> ex:RectangleWithArea
>>     a rdfs:Class ;
>>     rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource ;
>>     sh:constraint [
>>         a sh:OrConstraint ;
>>         sh:shapes (
>>         [
>>             sh:property [
>>                 sh:predicate ex:width ;
>>                 sh:minCount 1 ;
>>             ] ;
>>             sh:property [
>>                 sh:predicate ex:height ;
>>                 sh:minCount 1 ;
>>             ]
>>         ]
>>         [
>>             sh:property [
>>                 sh:predicate ex:area ;
>>                 sh:minCount 1 ;
>>             ]
>>         ] )
>>     ] .
>>
>> The body of the sh:OrConstraint in SPARQL would then be
>>
>>             SELECT *
>>             WHERE {
>>                 FILTER NOT EXISTS {
>>                     ?shapes rdf:rest*/rdf:first ?shape .
>>                     FILTER sh:hasShape(?this, ?shape) .
>>                 }
>>             }
>>
>> I assume this is better than what's in the current draft, so unless I
>> hear objections I'll update the proposal tomorrow.
>>
>> Could you confirm this works for you, Simon?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/2015 16:01, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in 
>>> sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/34
>>>
>>> Raised by: Simon Steyskal
>>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>>
>>> I was wondering whether we want to "limit" ourselves to 2 disjuncts 
>>> (i.e. sh:shape1 & sh:shape2) at a time, rather than having 
>>> potentially n disjuncts as proposed by Eric's "sh:choice" construct.
>>>
>>> Ofc, one could nest another sh:OrConstraint within sh:shape2 and if 
>>> necessary another one in the nested one and so forth, but I guess 
>>> this gets pretty ugly/verbose very quickly.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this? Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> simon
>>>
>>>
>>>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 22:09:17 UTC