Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]

There are a whole slew of semantic issues hiding here.  Some involve the
interpretation of isolated constraints.  Some involve the combination of
constraints.  Some involve closure.

There are also several syntactic issues hiding here, and as SHACL is a larger
language than ShEx there are more syntactic issues to be considered in SHACL
than there are in ShEx.

There are also several pragmatic issues hiding here.  In particular, I expect
that a large majority of cases will involve disjoint "ranges".  In this
situation, qualified cardinalities act very much like additive combination.


peter





On 09/24/2015 07:53 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
> 
> Raised by: Eric Prud'hommeaux
> On product: SHACL Spec
> 
> Dublin Core experience suggests that users expect multiple constraints on the same property to be "additive". For example
> 
> <BFPersonInterface1> sh:property
>   [ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://id.loc.gov/" ] ,
>   [ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://viaf.org/" ] .
> 
> would be interpreted as requiring one bf:identifiedBy arc starting
> with "http://id.loc.gov/" and another starting with
> "http://viaf.org/".
> 
> The current SHACL behavior is that multiple property constraints on
> the same predicate are "conjunctive", meaning that any triple with
> that predicate is expected to match all of property constraints. Are
> there use cases for this?
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 19:36:12 UTC