Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope?

The WG decides what goes into core. If anything is considered missing we 
can add it.

Holger's preference was to start with a very small core set of built-ins 
and let the community build libraries of templates as they see fit. The 
editor's draft reflects this approach although we've already added several 
features to the core.

So, we can and should extend the core to address our use cases. I hope the 
development of the test suite and the user-friendly syntax will help 
identify gaps we ought to fill in.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 09/04/2015 08:14:56 PM:

> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 09/04/2015 08:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and 
sh:AllObjectsScope?
> 
> So would this be in the core vocabulary? Because I've been given the 
> impression that the core vocabulary is full - since the answer to my 
> requirements is:
> 
> On 8/31/15 10:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> >
> > SHACL can certainly express all this, but maybe not with its Core
> > Vocabulary. It's still SHACL though.
> 
> How do some things get into core and others do not? There are at least 
> two requirements that have come from the DCMI community that are 
> essential but that we've been told cannot be in the core. How does this 
> get decided?
> 
> kc
> 
> On 7/17/15 8:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > in the minutes about ISSUE-62 I see you stated "I would like to be 
able
> > select objects of a property, not just subjects". We currently have 
[1]
> > sh:PropertyScope, which selects all subjects for a property. Is my
> > understanding correct that you'd like to see something like
> > sh:InversePropertyScope too?
> >
> > Also, we have sh:AllSubjectsScope - should I also add 
sh:AllObjectsScope
> > (which would exclude literals)?
> >
> > Both are trivial to add and they seem to make sense, if only for 
symmetry.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Holger
> >
> > [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#PropertyScope
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>