Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications


I've had a  further thought about simplifications based on our Skype
conversation. You raised the concern that the form of the SPARL query
depends on where it is used. I was going to look into how we could
wrap a core SPARQL definition so it could be used in all three
contexts - NodeConstraint, PropertyConstraint,
InversePropertyConstraint. A simpler approach suggested itself. We
could use three different properties with the definition. This has the
advantage that is cuts down the number of classes by a factor of three
and avoids repeating the parameter information.


sh:nodeSparql for sh:NodeConstraint
sh:propertySparql for sh:PropertyConstraint
sh:inversePropertySparql for sh:InversePropertyConstraint

The presence of these properties indicate where the assertion can be used.

e.g. for a custom assertion that can be used in all three types of constraint:

ex:MyAssertion rdfs:subclassOf sh:Assertion ;
    sh:parameter ex:myParameter ;
    sh:nodeSparql "SELECT ... " ;
    sh:propertySparql "SELECT ... ";
    sh:inversePropertySparql "SELECT ... " .

-- Arthur

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 15:26:42 UTC