ISSUE-103: Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types?

Syntax simplifications

Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL Spec
Raised by:
Holger Knublauch
Opened on:
2015-10-19
Description:
Now that we have a more consistent framework for node constraints, I noticed that we could further improve the syntax for various other constraint types:

Currently:

ex:NotExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
a sh:NotConstraint ;
sh:shape [
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;
]
] .


Suggested:

ex:NotExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:not [
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;
]
] .

Similar for sh:and and sh:or.

Closed constraints could become:

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:closed true ;
sh:ignoredProperties (sh:nodeShape rdf:type) ;
] ;

(which would also help with Karen's recent issue because she could say sh:closed=false explicitly).

Which would only leave the 4 property pair constraints as ugly ducklings. We could decide to make them directional and then use sh:property, e.g.

ex:EqualExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:firstName ;
sh:equals ex:givenName ;
]
] .

which would make perfect sense for sh:lessThan anyway.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Implemented resolution to ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-09)
  2. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-12)
  3. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
  4. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
  5. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-11-09)
  6. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-11-09)
  7. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-09)
  8. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-06)
  9. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-05)
  10. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
  11. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
  12. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
  13. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
  14. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
  15. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
  16. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
  17. Re: why use rdf:List? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-24)
  18. shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-10-19)

Related notes:

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-103, accepting the proposed simplification except for closed shapes which should be treated differently
see http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-minutes.html#resolution02

Arnaud Le Hors, 11 Dec 2015, 21:10:13

Display change log ATOM feed


Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, Chairs, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $