- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:43:41 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
In the current draft this is handled by sh:defaultValueType:
ex:s a sh:Shape ;
sh:property _:c ;
sh:inverseProperty _:c .
_:c [ sh:predicate ex:p ;
sh:minCount 5 ] .
The engine will "add" two type triples:
_:c a sh:PropertyConstraint .
_:c a sh:InversePropertyConstraint .
The engine can then pick the correct validator (SPARQL query) for each
rdf:type of that constraint.
Holger
On 11/03/2016 7:15, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 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 Friday, 11 March 2016 00:44:16 UTC