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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:09:29 -0700
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5721B729.30807@gmail.com>
This would have the effect of disallowing repeated sh:class so I think that
this would be a step backward.

Even without this problem the proposal just adds a hard-to-describe and
hard-to-use optional parameter.  I don't see this as an advance.

peter


On 02/28/2016 03:29 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/123
> 
> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
> On product: SHACL - Core
> 
> The spec currently has sh:directType as a way to limit values to have the specified rdf:type only. In contrast to sh:class this will not walk into subclasses of that class.
> 
> One issue here is that we currently have sh:classIn (for multiple classes) but no sh:directTypeIn.
> 
> Another issue is that the distinction between sh:class and sh:directType is fairly small, and basically meaningless if inferencing has been activated.
> 
> I think we should consider changing the syntax so that it becomes
> 
> ex:MyShape
>     sh:property [
>         sh:predicate ex:myProperty ;
>         sh:class ex:Person ;
>         sh:excludeSubclasses true ;
>     ] .
> 
> The sh:excludeSubclasses would serve as a flag to not walk into subclasses. It would also work for sh:classIn, solving the first issue without introducing yet another core construct.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 07:10:03 UTC

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