ISSUE-129: Existential constraints should be consistent

existential constraints

Existential constraints should be consistent

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL - Core

Raised by:

Dimitris Kontokostas

Opened on:

2016-03-07

Description:

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.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-03-17)
2. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-16)
3. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-16)
4. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-16)
5. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-16)
6. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2016-03-16)
7. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-16)
8. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-16)
9. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-16)
10. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr on 2016-03-15)
11. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-15)
12. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-08)
13. Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-08)
14. Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-08)
15. Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-07)
16. shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-03-07)

Related notes:

Display change log