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

> From: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com>
> ...
> 
> I believe the requested use cases can already be covered by qualified 
> value shape constraints and possibly sh:OrConstraint.

Could you please show us what this would take with the current draft? On the call you said it was verbose but I think it's important that we have the actual solution to look at for people to be able to judge. 

 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.

I agree on principle but who's to say what is a corner case and what is not? I don't think there is much value in argue over this. What is a corner case to some isn't to others.
So the only practical way forward is to accept that fact and when there is "enough" demand from the WG members for a given use case to support it.

Arnaud J Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM

> 
> 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?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
>