- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:06:15 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 9/25/2015 5:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. +1 I believe the requested use cases can already be covered by qualified value shape constraints and possibly sh:OrConstraint. As I had written before, QCRs are a niche feature in OWL. The core vocabulary should do its best job for the 80% most common scenarios, and not complicate everything only to cater for some corner cases. Holger > > > 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 23:06:52 UTC