ISSUE-103: Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types?

Syntax simplifications

Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Holger Knublauch

Opened on:

2015-10-19

Description:

Now that we have a more consistent framework for node constraints, I noticed that we could further improve the syntax for various other constraint types:

Currently:

ex:NotExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
a sh:NotConstraint ;
sh:shape [
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;
]
] .


Suggested:

ex:NotExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:not [
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:property ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;
]
] .

Similar for sh:and and sh:or.

Closed constraints could become:

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:closed true ;
sh:ignoredProperties (sh:nodeShape rdf:type) ;
] ;

(which would also help with Karen's recent issue because she could say sh:closed=false explicitly).

Which would only leave the 4 property pair constraints as ugly ducklings. We could decide to make them directional and then use sh:property, e.g.

ex:EqualExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:firstName ;
sh:equals ex:givenName ;
]
] .

which would make perfect sense for sh:lessThan anyway.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Implemented resolution to ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-09)
2. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-12)
3. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
4. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
5. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-11-09)
6. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-11-09)
7. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-09)
8. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-06)
9. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-11-05)
10. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
11. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
12. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-05)
13. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
14. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
15. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-11-04)
16. Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
17. Re: why use rdf:List? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-24)
18. shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-10-19)

Related notes:

Display change log