ISSUE-88: Should we add sh:qualifiedValue ?

qualifiedValue

Should we add sh:qualifiedValue ?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

Opened on:

2015-09-11

Description:

The current spec contains qualifiedValueShape to represent that "a certain number values of the given property must have a given shape".

That property can be used to emulate multi-occurrence of the same property with different value shapes. However, some use cases may require to express multi-occurrence of the same property with different values (not just value shapes).

As a simple example, we may want to declare items that must have two codes, one with two digits and the other that starts with an uppercase letter.

In ShEx, it can be represented as:

<item> {
:code PATTERN "\d{2}", :code PATTERN "^[A-Z]"
}

However, AFAIK, is is not possible to represent this example in the current SHACL Spec.

Possible solutions:

1.- Define a new property for that case, something like: sh:qualifiedValue maintaining the current qualifiedValueShape as it is. In that case, the previous definition would look like:

:Item a sh:Shape;
sh:property [
sh:predicate :code;
sh:qualifiedValue [
sh:pattern "^[A-Z]"
]
sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
] ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate :code;
sh:qualifiedValue [
sh:pattern "\d{2}" ;
]
sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
] ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate :code;
sh:minCount 2 ;
sh:maxCount 2 ;
] .

One problem having both "qualifiedValue" and "qualifiedValueShape" is that it would not handle the case where someone wants to have multi-occurrences that combine both.

2.- Replace qualifiedValueShape by qualifiedValue and support both value shapes and values. The example would be described as above.

3.- Ignore the use case.

4.- Adapt SHACL to have better support for multi-occurrence replacing the conjunctive semantics by additive semantics. In that case, the example could be defined as:

:item a :Shape;
sh:property [
sh:predicate :code;
sh:pattern "\d{2}"
] ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate :code;
sh:pattern "^[A-Z]" ;
] .


This issue is related with issue: http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/53 that was closed by given a partial solution that only takes into account value shapes.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
2. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
3. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-18)
4. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-18)
5. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-17)
6. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-17)
7. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-17)
8. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-17)
9. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-16)
10. Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-16)
11. shapes-ISSUE-98 (Node constraints): Proposal to generalize property constraints into node constraints [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-10-02)
12. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-01)
13. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-09-30)
14. Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-09-25)
15. Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-09-25)
16. Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-22)
17. Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-09-20)
18. Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-20)
19. shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-09-11)

Related notes:

Display change log