ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive?

additive repeated properties

Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL Spec
Raised by:
Eric Prud'hommeaux
Opened on:
2015-09-24
Description:
Dublin Core experience suggests that users expect multiple constraints on the same property to be "additive". For example

<BFPersonInterface1> sh:property
[ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://id.loc.gov/" ] ,
[ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://viaf.org/" ] .

would be interpreted as requiring one bf:identifiedBy arc starting
with "http://id.loc.gov/" and another starting with
"http://viaf.org/".

The current SHACL behavior is that multiple property constraints on
the same predicate are "conjunctive", meaning that any triple with
that predicate is expected to match all of property constraints. Are
there use cases for this?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Fwd: Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-03-01)
  2. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-19)
  3. ISSUE-92: Please review sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-19)
  4. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-16)
  5. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from eric@w3.org on 2017-01-13)
  6. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-13)
  7. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from eric@w3.org on 2017-01-12)
  8. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-12)
  9. Re: ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from eric@w3.org on 2017-01-12)
  10. ISSUE-92: Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-12)
  11. Re: IRC log? (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-18)
  12. Re: IRC log? (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-18)
  13. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-16)
  14. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-15)
  15. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-15)
  16. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-14)
  17. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-14)
  18. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from eric@w3.org on 2016-11-13)
  19. Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-11-13)
  20. Remaining issues with impact on the syntax (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-11-11)
  21. ISSUE-92: sh:partition (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-10-18)
  22. Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-31)
  23. ISSUE-92: sh:partition (again) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-03)
  24. Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-14)
  25. Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-07-14)
  26. List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-12)
  27. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 February 2016 (from eric@w3.org on 2016-02-18)
  28. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 February 2016 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-02-18)
  29. Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-02-17)
  30. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 18 February 2016 (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2016-02-17)
  31. Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-02-16)
  32. Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-02-12)
  33. Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-02-11)
  34. Re: ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr on 2016-02-11)
  35. ISSUE-92 sh:partition added to the spec. (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-02-10)
  36. Re: Any update on ISSUE-92? (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-02-04)
  37. Any update on ISSUE-92? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-30)
  38. ISSUE-92: Possible compromise (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-13)
  39. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-16)
  40. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-08)
  41. ISSUE-92 [Was: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015] (from eric@w3.org on 2015-10-08)
  42. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-08)
  43. Changes to sh:ClosedShapeConstraint? (was: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-26)
  44. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-09-25)
  45. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-09-25)
  46. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from eric@w3.org on 2015-09-25)
  47. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-25)
  48. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from eric@w3.org on 2015-09-25)
  49. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-25)
  50. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-09-25)
  51. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-25)
  52. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-09-24)
  53. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-09-24)
  54. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-24)
  55. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from eric@w3.org on 2015-09-24)
  56. Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-24)
  57. shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-09-24)

Related notes:

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined and deleting sh:partition

https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html

Irene Polikoff, 10 Feb 2017, 00:08:17

Display change log ATOM feed


Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.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 $