- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:03:25 -0700
- To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Oops, correct. peter On 09/25/2015 12:02 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Peter, > > Not sure if I understand the semantics of qualified cardinality > correctly, but I would have thought that the last bit should be: > > sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ; > sh:qualifiedValueShape [ rdf:type sh:Shape ; > sh:constraint [ rdf:type sh:AndConstraint ; > sh:shapes ( C B ) ] ] ; > sh:qualifiedMaxCount 0 ] > > -- Arthur > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> We want a shape that is satisfied (i.e., not violated) by nodes that have >> between nc and mc values (including unbounded) for ex:p that satisfy shape C >> and between nb and mb values (including unbounded) for ex:p that satisfy >> shape B and no other values for ex:p. Further there are no nodes that can >> satisfy both C and B. >> >> This can be done with the following SHACL shape: >> >> S rdf:type sh:Shape ; >> sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ; >> sh:qualifiedValueShape C ; >> sh:qualifiedMinCount nc ; >> sh:qualifiedMaxCount mc ] ; >> sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ; >> sh:qualifiedValueShape B ; >> sh:qualifiedMinCount nb ; >> sh:qualifiedMaxCount mb ] ; >> sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ; >> sh:valueShape [ rdf:type sh:Shape ; >> sh:constraint [ rdf:type sh:OrConstraint ; >> sh:shapes ( C B ) ] ] ] . >> >> If the "no other values for ex:p" is not wanted, then the last constraint is >> removed. >> >> >> If C and B are not disjoint *and no values are supposed to be in the >> intersection*, then the constraint >> >> sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ; >> sh:valueShape [ rdf:type sh:Shape ; >> sh:constraint [ rdf:type sh:AndConstraint ; >> sh:shapes ( C B ) ] ] ; >> sh:qualifiedMaxCount 0 ] >> >> is added. >> >> NB: None of this has been checked against a SHACL implementation, so the >> syntax might not be completely correct. >> >>
Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 19:03:58 UTC