shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] from RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker on 2016-03-10 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2016)

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:15:49 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ae7vx-0004Dn-5u@maia.w3.org>

shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/134

Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
On product: SHACL Spec

>From https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Mar/0106.html

Some constraint types require different SPARQL queries (or JavaScript or whatever) depending on the direction of a property (or even worse, for an arbitrary path). For example sh:minCount needs to count subjects versus objects.

Is it possible to determine whether a sh:minCount constraint is an inverse or not?  Consider

ex:s a sh:Shape ;
  sh:property _:c ;
  sh:inverseProperty _:c .
_:c [ sh:predicate ex:p ;
      sh:minCount 5 ] .

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 21:15:53 UTC