Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]

* Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> [2015-09-24 14:37-0400]
> 
> Are you saying that if there are different constraints on the same
> predicate, they are conjunctive, but if the constraints are the same, they
> should be disjunctive?
> 
> Like a minInclusive and a maxInclusive are an AND, but two minInclusive
> are an OR?

nope, just that the conjuctive constraints are in the same TripleConstraint:

conjunctive:
  <BFPersonInterface1> sh:property
    [ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://id.loc.gov/" ;
      sh:minCount 1; sh:maxCount 1 ] .

expects one bf:identifiedBy arc with an object matching "id.loc.gov",
and no others (current behavior).

conjunctive:
  <BFPersonInterface1> sh:property
    [ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://id.loc.gov/" ;
      sh:minCount 1; sh:maxCount 1 ] ,
    [ sh:predicate bf:identifiedBy ; sh:pattern "^http://viaf.org/" ;
      sh:minCount 1; sh:maxCount 2 ] .

expects one bf:identifiedBy arc with an object matching "id.loc.gov"
and one or more matching "viaf.org" and no others (proposed behavior).


> Even with that, it wouldn¹t mean that there must be one of each, just that
> it be either one or the other.
> 
> Irene Polikoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/24/15, 1:50 PM, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> >* Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> [2015-09-24 11:17-0400]
> >> One obvious use case for conjunction is something like:
> >> 
> >> :age greater than 4
> >> :age less than 19
> >
> >can't we just say 
> >  <S> sh:property [
> >    sh:predicate :age ;
> >    sh:minInclusive 4 ;
> >    sh:maxInclusive 19
> >  ] .
> >?
> >
> >
> >> Or
> >> 
> >> :deathYear integer
> >> :deathYear less than 2016
> >> :deathYear not less than :birthYear
> >> 
> >> Another is a combination of a cardinality constraint and the value
> >> constraint on the same predicate.
> >> 
> >> Irene Polikoff
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 9/24/15, 10:53 AM, "RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker"
> >> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated
> >> >properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]
> >> >
> >> >http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
> >> >
> >> >Raised by: Eric Prud'hommeaux
> >> >On product: SHACL Spec
> >> >
> >> >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?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >-- 
> >-ericP
> >
> >office: +1.617.599.3509
> >mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> >
> >(eric@w3.org)
> >Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> >email address distribution.
> >
> >There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> >which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 05:39:14 UTC