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

On 9/25/2015 10:17, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> > From: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com 
> <mailto: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.
>

Using the modifications that I had previously suggested [1] it would be like

ex:BFPersonInterface1
     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:property [
         sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ;
         sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
         sh:qualifiedMaxCount 1 ;
         sh:qualifiedValueShape [
             sh:constraint [
                 sh:pattern "^http://id.loc.gov/" ;
             ]
         ] ;
     ] ;
     sh:property [
         sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ;
         sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
         sh:qualifiedMaxCount 1 ;
         sh:qualifiedValueShape [
             sh:constraint [
                 sh:pattern "^http://viaf.org/" ;
             ]
         ] ;
     ] .


> 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.
>

Every WG member can vote -1 on any proposal. If some members want to 
enforce a certain design philosophy upon the whole language only because 
of (what I consider) corner cases like QCRs and multi-occurrance, then 
my vote will be a -1.

Holger


[1] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html

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