Re: Question on value based constraints

Felix,

If you want to have a property ex:hasAddress and its values be either a string or a resource which in turn has properties like steel, city, zip, etc., then you can simply use:

sh:path ex:hasAdress ;
  sh:or (
      [
        sh:datatype xsd:string ;
      ]
      [
        sh:class ex:ComplexAddress ;
      ]
    ) ;
.

You do not really need xone. If a person can only have one address, then add:
 
 sh:maxCount 1 ;

In this response, I am assuming that your complex addresses look as follows:

ex:Address1 ex:ComplexAddress;
ex:street “100 Main Street”;
ex:city “Any City”;

etc.

You would then have a shape that checks for validity of complex addresses. This can be done directly on a class (implicit target).

For example

ex:ComplexAddress a owl:Class, sh:NodeShape;
sh:property [
 sh:path ex:street ;
 sh:minCount 1
 sh:datatype xsd:string;];
sh:property [
 sh:path ex:city ;
 sh:minCount 1
 sh:datatype xsd:string;];
And so on

If your complex addresses for some other reason do not have a type statement, then do

sh:path ex:hasAdress ;
  sh:or (
      [
        sh:datatype xsd:string ;
      ]
      [
        sh:node ex:ComplexAddressShape ;
      ]
    ) ;
.

And also define a shape ex:ComplexAddressShape similar to above as something that has city, street, etc. properties.

x:one would be needed if your people could have either ex:streetAddress property or a group of properties ex:city+ex:street+…

In other words, there was no intermediate resource to represent complex address.

Irene


> On Apr 18, 2019, at 1:13 AM, Felix Sasaki <felix@sasakiatcf.com> wrote:
> 
> Perfect, thanks a lot, Simon. This is also in line with what I found in this tutorial:
> https://de.slideshare.net/mobile/jpcik/rdf-data-validation-2017-shacl <https://de.slideshare.net/mobile/jpcik/rdf-data-validation-2017-shacl>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Felix
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2019 schrieb Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at <mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>>:
> fwiw, sh:and isn't really necessary though.. is this what you wanted -> https://gist.github.com/simonstey/e3add7ff0740dd95a4c80d26840ca3e3 <https://gist.github.com/simonstey/e3add7ff0740dd95a4c80d26840ca3e3> ?
> 
> br simon
> 
> ---
> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
> 
> www: http://www.steyskal.info/ <http://www.steyskal.info/>  twitter: @simonsteys
> 
> Am 2019-04-17 18:41, schrieb Simon Steyskal:
> Hi!
> 
> have you tried combining sh:xone with two sh:and constraints?
> 
> e.g. something along the lines of:
> 
> sh:xone (
>    sh:and (
>         ex:hasAddress sh:datatype xsd:string
>         ex:addrType sh:hasValue "simple"
>    )
> 
>    sh:and (
>         ex:hasAddress sh:class ex:complexAddr
>         ex:addrType sh:hasValue "comolex"
>    )
> )
> 
> (I'm on mobile right now so just pseudocode)
> 
> br simon
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Felix Sasaki <felix@sasakiatcf.com <mailto:felix@sasakiatcf.com>>
> Date: 4/17/19 18:26 (GMT+01:00)
> To: public-shacl@w3.org <mailto:public-shacl@w3.org>
> Subject: Question on value based constraints
> 
> HI all,
> 
> I have a question on how to model alternative constraints based on
> literal values.
> 
> Let's assume the two alternatives ways to express an address:
> 
> ALTERNATIVE 1:
> ex:person1 ex:hasAddress "Street xzy plz 12345 ..."
> ex:person1 ex:addressType "simpleAddress".
> 
> ALTERNATIVE 2:
> 
> ex:person1 ex:hasAddress ex:someComplexAddress1 # object is an
> instance of class ex:complexAddress
> ex:person1 ex:addressType "complexAddress".
> 
> I want to define two alternative shapes for addresses: one is simple,
> i.e. the literal value "Street xzy plz 12345 ...", and one is complex,
> i.e. an instance of ex:complexAddress.
> 
> How do I model the choice between the two address' shapes based on the
> values "simpleAddress" vs. "complexAddress"?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Felix