W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:44:18 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57072912.4070103@topquadrant.com>
Hi Peter,

in your Proposal 4 all constraint components (sh:minCount etc) are 
applicable in all contexts (property constraints, inverse property 
constraints, node constraints). The following examples (using current 
syntax) would become valid. Could you please explain what the meaning of 
each of these cases would be, and when these cases make practical sense?

ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;

     sh:inverseProperty [
         sh:predicate ex:father ;
         sh:datatype xsd:string ;
     ] ;

     sh:constraint [
         sh:disjoint ex:otherProperty ;
     ] ;

     sh:inverseProperty [
         sh:predicate ex:mother ;
         sh:disjoint ex:otherProperty ;
     ] ;

     sh:constraint [
         sh:hasValue 10 ;
     ] ;

     sh:constraint [
         sh:minCount 5 ;
     ] ;

     sh:inverseProperty [
         sh:predicate ex:brother ;
         sh:minInclusive 42 ;
     ] ;

     sh:constraint [
         sh:uniqueLang true ;
     ] ;

     sh:inverseProperty [
         sh:predicate ex:parent ;
         sh:uniqueLang true ;
     ] ;

     sh:constraint [
         sh:qualifiedValueShape ex:PersonShape ;
         sh:qualifiedMinCount 3 ;
     ] ;

For an overview of the current design, see the summary table at the 
beginning of chapter 3:

     http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#constraints

Thanks,
Holger
Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 03:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC