Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer

* Iovka Boneva <> [2016-03-15 10:16+0100]
> Dear all,
> You can look at my early working draft in which I tackle this problem.

The link to the paper is in the upper right under the Files heading,
also here: <>.

> I introduce a simple logical language that subsumes both ShEx and SHACL*.
> This allows me to propose a formal semantics for SHACL, including
> semantics for well founded recursion with stratified negation.
> The semantics is defined as a translation to the logical language.
> I am currently working on describing the translation of ShEx to the
> logical language. I've got a reasonable clear idea of which part of
> ShEx is expressible in SHACL, but still need to work out the details
> of the syntactic restriction to be imposed.
> On my opinion, this work not only allows to bring ShEx and SHACL
> closer, but also allows to better understand the expressiveness of
> both languages. The logical language is based on well-known
> formalisms such as logical programming, Datalog, Monadic Second
> Order logic, Presburger arithmetic, so should be easier to
> understand by a larger community.**
> The current draft is incomplete regarding ShEx, but is complete
> regarding SHACL. I would be happy if somebody (Peter ?) familiar
> with SHACL and with formal methods could review it, and check
> whether my understanding of SHACL is correct, and whether my
> semantics captures correctly the intended semantics of SHACL
> I apologise for the unfinished document, but preferred to
> communicate it early.
> * Almost all ShEx and SHACL are captured, I left a few features
> apart to keep things simple.
> ** It turns out that the current ShEx semantics coincides with the
> new one introduced in this draft. The advantage of the new one is to
> be expressed using well known formalisms.
> Best regards,
> Iovka
> Le 03/03/2016 18:15, Iovka Boneva a écrit :
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I am currently studying what restrictions should be made to ShEx
> >so that it can be compiled to SHACL. My hope is to manage to bring
> >the two languages closer, or even make them converge. Such
> >convergence however might require some changes to SHACL.
> >
> >The problem of repeated properties has been around for a while,
> >and my idea is to change the way we treat repeated properties in
> >ShEx and adopt something similar to qualified cardinalities in
> >
> >Another difference is the disjunction. Considering this concrete example:
> >
> >"A person has either a foaf:name, or a foaf:givenName and a
> >foaf:familyName"
> >
> >This is easily written in ShEx, but not in SHACL. I however think
> >that it would not require a big change to SHACL to be able to
> >easily handle such use cases.
> >
> >I hope to be able to make a concrete proposal of modified ShEx and
> >SHACL with the perspective of getting the two languages closer
> >(there are still some corner cases that I do not know how to deal
> >with). Hopefully it is possible to achieve this with modifications
> >of the two languages that are acceptable for the two communities.
> >
> >
> -- 
> Iovka Boneva
> Associate professor (MdC) Université de Lille
> +33 6 95 75 70 25


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:02:39 UTC