ISSUE-138: Should property constraints use rdf:Lists?

Property constraints as lists

Should property constraints use rdf:Lists?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL - Core
Raised by:
Holger Knublauch
Opened on:
2016-03-18
Description:
Proposal 4 proposes a change to the RDF representation of property constraints, from

ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate rdfs:label ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] .

to

ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;
sh:propValues (
rdfs:label
[ sh:minCount 1 ]
) .

Inverse properties currently look like

ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;
sh:inverseProperty [
sh:predicate ex:myProperty ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] .

and would change to

ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;
sh:propValues (
[ sh:inverse ex:myProperty ] ;
[ sh:minCount 1 ] ;
) .

Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-18)
  2. shapes-ISSUE-138 (Property constraints as lists): Should property constraints use rdf:Lists? [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-03-18)

Related notes:

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-138, saying no, we won't use rdf:Lists for property
https://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04

Arnaud Le Hors, 14 Apr 2016, 20:59:53

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 138.html,v 1.1 2018/11/26 09:03:29 carine Exp $