shapes-ISSUE-169 (sh:scopeProperty naming): Should we rename sh:scopeProperty/InverseProperty [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-169 (sh:scopeProperty naming): Should we rename sh:scopeProperty/InverseProperty [SHACL - Core]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/169

Raised by: Holger Knublauch
On product: SHACL - Core

While thinking about how to best represent the shapes of property constraints, and recognizing that their shape depends on the incoming sh:property link, I came to the conclusion that sh:scopeProperty and sh:scopeInverseProperty are not the best names. Really they select subjects and objects of triples, and this direction is not clear from the current names.

PROPOSAL: Rename sh:scopeProperty to sh:scopeSubjectsOf and sh:scopeInverseProperty to sh:scopeObjectsOf.

For example, this allows us to say that the shapes of the constraint components have sh:scopeObjectsOf sh:property and sh:scopeObjectsOf sh:constraint, without requiring the rdf:type sh:PropertyConstraint. This may help us get rid of sh:context.

Received on Saturday, 18 June 2016 00:04:23 UTC