Re: proposal for issue-211

Could you summarize what motivates this change? The "issue" mentioned in 
the email that you quote below is irrelevant. Users will *not* write 
such shapes. What is broken with the current design?

Holger


On 7/12/2016 17:38, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> After a lot of thought, I would like to propose a change in shacl to 
> close this issue.
>
> the change is a slight variation of Peter's proposal option #2 from 
> this email
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0053.html
>
> The variation adds the notion of sh:PropertyShape as a subClass of 
> sh:Shape.
> This makes it easier to define some annotation properties like 
> sh:label that make sense on properties only and gives us the option to 
> keep sh:property in the language if we want to.
>
> if we decide to keep sh:property, it will become a constraint like 
> sh:shape but it will make all our existing syntax valid and with the 
> exact same behaviour.
> So this approach will have no effect on the existing syntax but will 
> also regularise the language and enable some new shorter forms of 
> shapes e.g.
>
> ex:S1 a sh:Shape ;
>   sh:targetClass ex:Person;
>   sh:property [
>     sh:predicate ex:name ;
>     sh:minCount 1 .
>   ]
>
> could be also written as
>
> ex:S1 a sh:Shape ;
>   sh:targetClass ex:Person;
>   sh:predicate ex:name ;
>   sh:minCount 1 .
>
> if we decide to drop sh:property we would use sh:shape instead and 
> reduce the alternate ways we can define the same thing.
>
> I also checked this offline with Peter and he is willing to help us 
> get the new terminology right should we decide to go this way
>
> Best,
> Dimitris
>
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia 
> Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, 
> http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>