ISSUE-135: Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too?
and/or syntactic sugar
Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL - Core
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- 2016-03-10
- Description:
- Currently, the values of sh:and and sh:or must be lists of sh:Shapes. This sometimes creates a verbose syntax:
ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Person ] ]
[ sh:constraint [ sh:class ex:Patient ] ]
)
] .
I suggest to generalize this so that the list items may also be instances of sh:Constraint. The syntax would then become
ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:constraint [
sh:and (
[ sh:class ex:Person ]
[ sh:class ex:Patient ]
)
] .
Similar changes to sh:not and possibly other places. The interpretation would be that the system "auto-boxes" the constraint with
[ sh:constraint [ ... ] ]
We may want to evaluate the same solution for sh:valueShape too. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 27 July 2016 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-28)
- Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-14)
- Re: List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-07-14)
- List of open SHACL Core Syntax ISSUEs (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-12)
- Re: On various syntax issues (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-20)
- Re: On various syntax issues (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-19)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-11)
- Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from eric@w3.org on 2016-05-10)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-10)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-09)
- Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-05)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
- regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from eric@w3.org on 2016-05-05)
- Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-05-05)
- ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-05)
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-11)
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-04-08)
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-08)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-30)
- How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-18)
- shapes-ISSUE-135 (and/or syntactic sugar): Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-03-10)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-135, no longer relevant
See https://www.w3.org/2016/07/28-shapes-minutes.html#resolution06
Display change log