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:
- How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-18)
- 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
Display change log