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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:57:08 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <57158264.3010708@topquadrant.com>
What should the behavior be: Should it require the rdf:type triple? That 
would make it easier, e.g. to distinguish Shapes from constraints. And 
other languages like OWL also require rdf:type triples in nested classes 
(owl:Restriction in owl:intersectionOf etc [1]). But then OTOH it's 
another triple that bloats the syntax.

For now I have added the type triple:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/21f4b09e2a40eeedcca813b3b2d7cab374dbc6f4

Thanks for pointing this out.

Holger

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Boolean


On 19/04/2016 2:33, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/151
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> ex:SuperShape
> 	a sh:Shape ;
> 	sh:property [
> 		sh:predicate ex:property ;
> 		sh:minCount 1 ;
> 	] .
>
> ex:ExampleAndShape
> 	a sh:Shape ;
> 	sh:constraint [
> 		sh:and (
> 			ex:SuperShape
> 			[
> 				sh:property [
> 					sh:predicate ex:property ;
> 					sh:maxCount 1 ;
> 				]
> 			]
> 		)
> 	] .
>
> does not provide a type for the anonymous shape
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 00:57:45 UTC

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