ISSUE-104: Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR?
Union ranges
Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- 2015-10-23
- Description:
- While playing with SHACL in practice, I noticed a gap in the spec.
It is quite common to have properties that can take multiple types of values. sh:text is one example where we hard-coded the pattern rdf:langString OR xsd:string, but a similar variation is xsd:date OR xsd:dateTime. Another example is skos:member, which is skos:Concept OR skos:Collection. schema.org is full of such examples.
To express such unions, the current syntax is very verbose and not suitable for static analysis:
ex:MyShape
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:maxCount 1 ;
] ;
sh:constraint [
sh:or (
[
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:datatype xsd:string ;
]
]
[
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:datatype rdf:langString ;
]
]
)
] .
An option would be to use OWL's unionOf:
ex:MyShape
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:maxCount 1 ;
sh:datatype [
a owl:Class ;
owl:unionOf ( xsd:string rdf:langString )
]
] .
which is much better because it allows us to put everything into a single sh:property node. However, it adds a dependency on OWL, setting wrong expectations about inferencing and all kinds of other unsupported features such as further nested classes, NOT, AND etc, which are usually unnecessary.
I believe we should support this syntax:
ex:MyShape
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:maxCount 1 ;
sh:datatype ( xsd:string rdf:langString )
] .
In this proposal, the values of sh:datatype, sh:directType and sh:class may either be IRIs of classes or an rdf:List of IRIs. The SPARQL queries in the spec would need to be adjusted accordingly. We can delete sh:text instead.
I believe this covers a large number of additional use cases while keeping the complexity and implementation burden to a minimum. I believe it is of strategic importance to have a natural way to express schema.org and other common use cases with SHACL. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- ISSUE-104: Implemented resolution (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-10)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
- Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-11-09)
- Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-11-09)
- Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-09)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-06)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-05)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-30)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-30)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
- shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-10-23)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-104, as proposed, using the properties sh:classIn and sh:datatypeIn, and noting that every case should be examined to see whether it deserves to have the same feature
See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03
Display change log