Re: shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec]

• From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:57:14 -0500
• To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CAApBiOmoSzkNRFeS1JxtVy0oDkWqOVgWOf6_ECNjTvpc==Tehw@mail.gmail.com>

I've made this comment a few times. My concern is that closeness,
although certainly a constraint, is very unlike all the other
constraints. It is more like a characteristic of the shape as a whole.
I'd therefore prefer to see it promoted to be a property of the shape
instead of being just another constraint.

Concretely, the Turtle would look like this for Example 31:

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
  a sh:Shape ;
  sh:close true;
  sh:ignoredProperties (rdf:type) ;
  sh:property [
    sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ;
  ] ;
  sh:property [
    sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ;
  ] .

Or we could introduce a new class:
sh:ClosedShape rdfs:subClassOf sh:Shape .

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
  a sh:ClosedShape ;
  sh:ignoredProperties (rdf:type) ;
  sh:property [
    sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ;
  ] ;
  sh:property [
    sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ;
  ] .

-- Arthur

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/115
>
> Raised by: Arnaud Le Hors
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 03:57:42 UTC