Re: Formal objection to removing features from node shapes

Peter,

Do you have a real life application example where this type of check is needed and is not likely to be accomplished in other ways e.g., by creating shapes for subjects of ex:p1? I don’t believe any of the use cases the WG has assembled as requirements for SHACL would require this.

We hear feedback that the Semantic Web standards in the past focused too much on theoretical use cases and not enough on supporting what people actually do with data. And that this is the main reason for the perceived adoption failure of RDF. For example:

>>> Maybe the RDF community got caught up in the complexities of different OWL compliance points and inferencing and forgot about what people mostly do with data. Had the focus been different, we might be in a different situation.

With SHACL, I believe the WG wants to focus on what people do with data and make sure we support that in as user friendly way as possible.

Regards,

Irene

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Removing these node shapes from the language causes a decided drop in
> expressive power.  For example,
> 
> ex:s1 rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
> sh:targetClass ex:C1 ;
> sh:disjoint ex:p1 .
> 
> checks that SHACL instances of ex:C1 do not have themselves as a value for
> ex:p1.   This useful ability cannot be obtained through any other means.