ISSUE-135: Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too?

and/or syntactic sugar

Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL - Core

Raised by:

Holger Knublauch

Opened on:

2016-03-10

Description:

Currently, the values of sh:and and sh:or must be lists of sh:Shapes. This sometimes creates a verbose syntax:

ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Person ] ]
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Patient ] ]
)
] .

I suggest to generalize this so that the list items may also be instances of sh:Constraint. The syntax would then become

ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:class ex:Person ]
[ sh:class ex:Patient ]
)
] .

Similar changes to sh:not and possibly other places. The interpretation would be that the system "auto-boxes" the constraint with

[ sh:constraint [ ... ] ]

We may want to evaluate the same solution for sh:valueShape too.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 27 July 2016 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-28)
2. Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-14)
3. Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-07-14)
4. List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-12)
5. Re: On various syntax issues (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-20)
6. Re: On various syntax issues (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-19)
7. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-11)
8. Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from eric@w3.org on 2016-05-10)
9. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-10)
10. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-09)
11. Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-05)
12. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
13. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
14. regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from eric@w3.org on 2016-05-05)
15. Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-05-05)
16. ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
17. Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-11)
18. Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-04-08)
19. Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-08)
20. Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-30)
21. How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-18)
22. shapes-ISSUE-135 (and/or syntactic sugar): Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-03-10)

Related notes:

Display change log