- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:00:54 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 8/04/2016 11:26, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> That could only be characterized as 'user friendly' to formal logics people, with strange keyboards.
> Is that the audience for SCHACL?
> If so, I'm on the wrong list.
> I thought this was RDF data shapes.
Actually, I agree. I was trying to be tolerant to an alternative view
point for logics people. But given that Peter is showing zero tolerance
to other view points in his own voting (see his constant -1 votes to
basically everything except his own proposals on the Proposals page), I
also withdraw my tolerance to this syntax and will vote -1 on it.
Creating such a syntax creates a completely wrong message to the
community (yet another academic standard) and an unnecessary split in
the community. Even academic papers should be readable.
Holger
>
> Simon Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2016 12:03 AM
> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL
>
> A User-Friendly Syntax for Core SHACL
>
>
> This is a user-friendly syntax for the core of SHACL that tries to align directly with my SHACL RDF syntax.
>
>
> Example Description
>
> ∈ ex:Person ⊩ |≤27| # there are at most 27 people
> ¹ex:child ⊩ ∋ ex:john # child subjects include John
> ¹ex:child ⊩ ∈ ex:Person ∧ IRI # ... are people and not blank
> ex:child² ⊩ ∈ ex:Person # child objects are people
> ∈ ex:Patriot ⊩ ⋹ ex:Citizen # patriots are directly citizens
> ex:password² ⊩ ^^xs:string ∧ ℓ≤24 ∧ ℓ≥8 # passwords are between 8 and 24 long
> ex:age² ⊩ ^^xs:integer ∧ ≥0 # ages are non-negative integers
> ex:john ⊩ ex:name ∝ "^John.*" ★ # John's name starts with "John"
> ex:mstatus² ⊩ ∈ { ex:single ex:married ex:divorced }
> # three marital statuses only
> ex:Person ⊩ ex:mstatus ∝ |=1| # people have one marital status
> ex:Person ⊩ ex:mstatus ∝ ∋ ex:married → ex:spouse ∝ |≥1|
> # married people have a spouse
> ex:Person ⊩ ex:mstatus ∝ ∋ ex:single → ex:spouse ∝ |≤0|
> # single people don't have a spouse
> ∈ ex:Person ⊩ ex:spouse ∅ ex:child ∧ # people can't marry their children
> ex:child ex:age ≤ ex:age ∧ # ... are older than their children
> ex:age ≤ ex:child⁻¹ ex:age ∧ # ... are younger than their parents
> ex:child⁻¹ ex:child ∝ |≤9| ∧ # ... have at most 8 siblings
> ex:name ∝ ∈ rdf:langString ∧ # ... names are lang-tagged strings
> ex:name ∝ ➀ # ... have only one name per language
> ∈ ex:Person ⊩
> ( ( ex:spouse ∝ |≤0| → ex:mstatus ∝ ( |≥1| ∧ ∈{ex:single ex:divorced} ) ) ∖
> ( ex:spouse ∝ |≤1| → ex:mstatus ∝ ( |≥1| ∧ ∈{ex:married} ) ) ∖
> |≤3| ∖ ) # people with no spouse are single or divorced
> # people with one spouse are married
> # and there are at most three people left over
> ∈ ex:Isolated ⊩ ⟦ rdf:type ⟧ # isolated nodes have only types
> ∈ ex:nonIsolated ⊩ ¬ ⟦ rdf:type ⟧ # non-isolated nodes have other values
> sh:partShape ≡ (IRI ∨ sh:inverse ∝ IRI) # parts are properties or inverses
> sh:pathShape ≡ ∈ sh:path ⊩ ( sh:partShape ∨ ⦇ sh:partShape ⦈ )
> # paths are parts or lists of parts
>
>
> Grammar Meaning
>
> shaclDoc ::= ( prefixID | definition ) *
>
> prefixID ::= '@prefix' prefixName ':' IRI
>
> definition::= name '≡' shape # refer to shape by name
> | name '≡' scopedShape # refer to shape by name
>
> scopedShape ::= scope ( '∪' scope )* '⊩' shape
> # set of all nodes in any scope validates against shape
>
> scope ::= value # the value
> | '∈' class # SHACL instances of class
> | '¹' property # subjects of property
> | property '²' # objects of property
> | '¹' '?' # all subjects
> | '?' '²' # all objects
>
> shape ::= ( filter ( '∧' filter )* '→' )? component ( '∧' component )*
> # set of nodes that validate against all filters
> # validates against each component
>
> filter ::= component # nodes that validate vs shape
>
> component ::= name # validate against named shape
> | '¬' component # doesn't validate ag. comp.
> | '∈' class ( '∪' class )* # SHACL instance of some class
> | '^^' datatype ( '∪' datatype )* # has one of datatypes
> | '∈' '{' value* '}' # is one of values
> | '⋹' class # has rdf:type of class
> | 'ℓ' '≤' nonnegativeInteger # maximum string length
> | 'ℓ' '≥' nonnegativeInteger # minimum string length
> | '>' literal # exclusive minimum
> | '≥' literal # inclusive minimum
> | '<' literal # exclusive maximum
> | '≤' literal # inclusive maximum
> | 'IRI' | 'Literal' | 'BlankNode' # kind of node
> | regex '★' ( string )? # matches pattern (with flags)
> | path '=' path # path values the same
> | path '∅' path # path values disjoint
> | path '<' path # path1 values < path2 values
> | path '≤' path # path1 values ≤ path2 values
> | path '∝' component # path values in shape
> | '⦇' shape '⦈' # list members in shape
> | '⟦' pathpart * '⟧' # no other property has values
> | '∋' value # set contains value
> | '|' '≥' nonnegativeInteger '|' # minimum size of set
> | '|' '≤' nonnegativeInteger '|' # maximum size of set
> | '|' '=' nonnegativeInteger '|' # exact size of set
> | '➀' # only one value per language
> | '(' shape ')' # validate against shape
> | '(' component ('∨'component)+ ')' # validate against one or more
> | '(' ( component '∖' ) + ')' # partition - see below
> # The initial remnant is the entire set being validated.
> # The next remnant is the subset of the current one that fails
> # to validate against the filter of the respective component.
> # The final remnant is empty.
> # Each remnant validates against the respective component.
> ⦅
>
> path ::= pathpart + # composition
> pathpart ::= property
> | property '⁻¹' # inverse of property
>
> class ::= name # a class
> datatype ::= name # a datatype
> property ::= name # a property
> value ::= name | literal # object
>
> regex ::= string # regular expression
>
> name ::= qname # NOTE: no <IRI> here, just qnames
> qname ::= prefixName ':' name
> IRI ::= '<' ucharacter '>'
>
> prefixName as per Turtle
> name as per Turtle
> literal as per Turtle
>
> string as per usual
> nonnegativeInteger as per usual
>
>
>
> Possible Tweaks
>
> It would be possible to modify the syntax to come up with a more standard treatment of conjunction, disjunction, and negation but that syntax would not align as closely with the RDF syntax.
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 21:01:31 UTC