- From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:30:31 +0000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
shapes-ISSUE-135 (and/or syntactic sugar): Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? [SHACL - Core]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/135
Raised by: Holger Knublauch
On product: SHACL - Core
Currently, the values of sh:and and sh:or must be lists of sh:Shapes. This sometimes creates a verbose syntax:
ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Person ] ]
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Patient ] ]
)
] .
I suggest to generalize this so that the list items may also be instances of sh:Constraint. The syntax would then become
ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:class ex:Person ]
[ sh:class ex:Patient ]
)
] .
Similar changes to sh:not and possibly other places. The interpretation would be that the system "auto-boxes" the constraint with
[ sh:constraint [ ... ] ]
We may want to evaluate the same solution for sh:valueShape too.
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 22:30:33 UTC