Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Holger Knublauch <>

> On 11/03/2016 15:57, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Ok, we can leave this ticket open here as a reminder that this needs to be
> clarified. Like the other unwritten details about sh:property vs
> sh:inverseProperty vs sh:constraint, this will be cleaned up once we have
> resolved the general metamodel discussion.
> I believe this ISSUE-134 can be closed now: Section 2.3 now includes a
> paragraph:
> The classes sh:PropertyConstraint and sh:InversePropertyConstraint are
> disjoint, i.e. it is illegal to have shape definitions that use nodes that
> are instances of both classes - either explicitly stated via rdf:type or
> implicitly via their default value type.
Can we say that all constraint types are pairwise disjoint?
we can get in similar cases when someone uses sh:NodeConstraint
and sh:InversePropertyConstraint
this means that constraint IRIs can be reused but only with same constraint


Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects:,, http://
Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 07:43:27 UTC