Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec.

• From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:06:25 +1000
• To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <56BD2201.7020500@topquadrant.com>

Hi Arthur,

I would suggest to rename the class sh:QCC (which is cryptic) to 
sh:Partition.

I also believe it is simply a subclass of sh:NodeConstraint. 
sh:NodeConstraint already supports all these kinds of constraints such 
as sh:pattern so we don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The only 
properties that are mixed in are sh:minCount and sh:maxCount. I am not 
sure that reusing those property URIs is the right way to go, as they 
really have a different meaning here compared to in property constraints.

To summarize, what about:

sh:partition
     a rdf:Property ;
     rdfs:range rdf:List ;  # of sh:Partition
.

sh:Partition
     a rdfs:Class ;
     rdfs:subClassOf sh:NodeConstraint .

sh:minOccurs
     a rdf:Property ;
     rdfs:domain sh:Partition ;
     rdfs:range xsd:integer .

sh:maxOccurs
     a rdf:Property ;
     rdfs:domain sh:Partition ;
     rdfs:range xsd:integer .

Holger


On 11/02/2016 13:31, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> As we discussed at the last telecon, I've added the sh:partition
> constraint to resolve ISSUE-92. See [1].
>
> -- Arthur
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#PartitionConstraint
>

Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 00:06:59 UTC