- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:52:35 -0800
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

You mean it doesn't use SHACL syntax? That was by design. I could provide RDF encodings, using the current SHACL syntax where possible, if that would help. peter On 02/27/2016 06:42 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Thanks, Peter. So I find this intriguing but don't know what it means in > actual SHACL terms since it doesn't use SHACL properties. Could you say what > the changes would be? > > kc > > On 2/24/16 10:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> More or less. >> >> "fillers of property p" = "those nodes that are the objects of s p o triples >> for any particular unspecified s" >> >> It may be useful to also allow inverse properties and property paths so the >> above rewrite would have to modified into something removed from actual >> triples. >> >> peter >> >> >> On 02/24/2016 09:53 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> "fillers" = "values"? >>> >>> On 2/24/16 9:03 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>> SHACL states property constraints in the following way >>>> >>>> for the fillers of property ex:p >>>> the special fillers must all belong to class ex:s, >>>> there must be at least one, >>>> there must be at least five special fillers, >>>> they must all be either ex:a, ex:b, ex:c, ex:d, ex:e, ex:f, ex:d, ex:h, >>>> ex:i, or ex:j, >>>> there must be at most ten, >>>> the identifiers used for them must match regular expression r, >>>> they must all belong to class ex:c, and >>>> there must be at most seven special fillers. >>>> >>>> but not in the following way >>>> >>>> for the fillers of property ex:p >>>> there must be at least one, >>>> they must all belong to class ex:c, >>>> there must be at most five, >>>> they must all belong to class ex:d, and >>>> there must be at least three. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, these features of the SHACL RDF syntax are contributing to >>>> the complexity of the SHACL metamodel and to the number of decisions that >>>> have to be made to construct the SHACL metamodel. >>>> >>>> >>>> If SHACL stated constraints in the following way >>>> >>>> there must be at least one filler of property ex:p, >>>> all the fillers of property ex:p must belong to class ex:c, >>>> there must be at most five fillers of property ex:p, >>>> all the fillers of property ex:p must belong to class ex:d, and >>>> there must be at least three fillers of property ex:p. >>>> >>>> then the the metamodel for SHACL constraints could have just particular >>>> constraints (from the clauses above and other constraint constructs). This >>>> would be a significant simplification of the metamodel. >>>> >>>> >>>> Even if SHACL permitted the second construction above and uniformly stated >>>> multi-part particular constraints as at the end of the following there might >>>> be significant simplifications of the metamodel >>>> >>>> for the fillers of property ex:p >>>> there must be at least one, >>>> they must all be either ex:a, ex:b, ex:c, ex:d, ex:e, ex:f, ex:d, ex:h, >>>> ex:i, or ex:j, >>>> there must be at most ten, >>>> the identifiers used for them must match regular expression r, >>>> they must all belong to class ex:c, and >>>> there must be at between five and seven fillers that belong to class >>>> ex:s. >>>> >>>> >>>> These simplifications would require changes to the RDF syntax of SHACL. >>>> >>>> peter >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

Received on Saturday, 27 February 2016 14:53:06 UTC