Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements

I for one have been wondering why we needed such a heavy structure so I 
would very welcome these improvements.
I do think this needs to be raised as a formal issue and proposal. I know 
this feels like unnecessary bureaucracy but this is what it takes to work 
in a group as opposed to work on your own. :-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 10/15/2015 09:39:20 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 10/15/2015 09:40 PM
> Subject: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements
> 
> 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
> 
>