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

On 9/25/2015 5:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> There are a whole slew of semantic issues hiding here.  Some involve the
> interpretation of isolated constraints.  Some involve the combination of
> constraints.  Some involve closure.
>
> There are also several syntactic issues hiding here, and as SHACL is a larger
> language than ShEx there are more syntactic issues to be considered in SHACL
> than there are in ShEx.
>
> There are also several pragmatic issues hiding here.  In particular, I expect
> that a large majority of cases will involve disjoint "ranges".  In this
> situation, qualified cardinalities act very much like additive combination.

+1

I believe the requested use cases can already be covered by qualified 
value shape constraints and possibly sh:OrConstraint. As I had written 
before, QCRs are a niche feature in OWL. The core vocabulary should do 
its best job for the 80% most common scenarios, and not complicate 
everything only to cater for some corner cases.

Holger


>
>
> peter
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/24/2015 07:53 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 23:06:52 UTC