- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:01:20 -0400
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
+1 as long as we define the abbreviated syntax in terms of the verbose syntax. -- Arthur On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:09 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > 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 Thursday, 29 October 2015 20:01:48 UTC