- 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