Re: shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints? [SHACL Spec]

Hi!

At least we have also 2 use cases motivating this [27,32]. Where [32] 
specifically states that:

"If these validations can be expressed in a higher level language which 
makes it simpler for clients to implement them constraint systems will 
be useful in more places. "

cheers,
simon

[27] 
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/#uc27-relationships-between-values-of-multiple-properties
[32] 
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/#uc32-non-sparql-based-solution-to-express-constraints-between-different-properties

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2015-08-19 02:03, schrieb RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue 
Tracker:
> shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include
> support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints?
> [SHACL Spec]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/81
> 
> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
> On product: SHACL Spec
> 
> SKOS has several pairs of properties that must be disjoint. E.g.
> skos:prefLabel and skos:altLabel must not have the same values. This
> seems to be a recurring pattern, also supported by OWL. We may want to
> add something like
> 
> sh:AbstractPropertyPairConstraint
>     sh:argument sh:predicate1 ;
>     sh:argument sh:predicate2 .
> 
> sh:DisjointPropertyPairConstraint
>     rdfs:subClassOf sh:AbstractPropertyPairConstraint .
> 
> Another common pattern would be
> 
> sh:OrderedPropertyPairConstraint
>     rdfs:subClassOf sh:AbstractPropertyPairConstraint .
> 
> where all values of ?predicate1 must be < ?predicate2.

Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 05:17:53 UTC