- From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:09:28 +0000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/103
Raised by: Holger Knublauch
On product: SHACL Spec
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.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 00:09:31 UTC