shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] from RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker on 2016-03-07 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2016)

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:49:33 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1acsjF-0005Wz-RL@deneb.w3.org>

shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/129

Raised by: Dimitris Kontokostas
On product: SHACL - Core

The current core spec defines three existential constraints: sh:minCount, sh:maxCount and sh:hasValue. 
sh:hasValue requires for a value to exist and match the one supplied in the shape definition.

This is not consistent with sh:in which is a variation of sh:hasValue and probably not easy for users to understand the different of sh:hasValue and other constraints e.g. sh:minLength, sh:class, etc

I suggest we restrict the core existential constraints to sh:minCount and sh:maxCount only. The rest of the constraints will apply only when there is a value.

Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 10:49:38 UTC