W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core]

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:12:54 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56E92396.2030508@topquadrant.com>
Proposals listed, others welcome:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-136:_Property_pair_names

Something with "valueSet" may also work.

Holger


On 14/03/2016 10:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
> It would be good to get the concept of "value of the property" in 
> there. It isn't the property that is equal, it's the value of the 
> property. So something like:
>
> sh:equalValue
> sh:notEqualValue
> sh:valueLessThan
> sh:valueLessThanOrEqual
>
> kc
>
> On 3/13/16 4:13 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of 
>> property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/136
>>
>> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
>> On product: SHACL - Core
>>
>> We currently use the following terms to represent relationships 
>> between properties:
>>
>> sh:equals (?predicate has same values as the other property)
>> sh:notEquals (?predicate has different values...)
>> sh:lessThan (all values of ?predicate must be less than values of 
>> other property)
>> sh:lessThanOrEquals ( <= )
>>
>> I believe it is too easy for a reader to assume that the values of 
>> these properties are not other properties but constants, e.g. "must 
>> be less than 10". But for that we already have sh:maxExclusive etc.
>>
>> We should consider renaming to something like
>>
>> sh:equalProperty
>> sh:notEqualProperty
>> sh:lessThanProperty
>> sh:lessThanOrEqualProperty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2016 09:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:30 UTC