- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:39:20 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Now that we have a more consistent framework for node constraints, I noticed that we could further improve the syntax for various other constraint types: Currently: ex:NotExampleShape a sh:Shape ; sh:constraint [ a sh:NotConstraint ; sh:shape [ sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:property ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] ; ] ] . Suggested: ex:NotExampleShape a sh:Shape ; sh:constraint [ sh:not [ sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:property ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] ; ] ] . Similar for sh:and and sh:or. Closed constraints could become: ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape a sh:Shape ; sh:constraint [ sh:closed true ; sh:ignoredProperties (sh:nodeShape rdf:type) ; ] ; (which would also help with Karen's recent issue because she could say sh:closed=false explicitly). Which would only leave the 4 property pair constraints as ugly ducklings. We could decide to make them directional and then use sh:property, e.g. ex:EqualExampleShape a sh:Shape ; sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:firstName ; sh:equals ex:givenName ; ] ] . which would make perfect sense for sh:lessThan anyway. Does anyone have issues with such changes? They almost feel like editorial changes, but if needed I could raise a new formal ISSUE, put this to the end of the queue and wait... :) Cheers, Holger
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 04:39:58 UTC