ISSUE-169: Should we rename sh:scopeProperty/InverseProperty
sh:scopeProperty naming
Should we rename sh:scopeProperty/InverseProperty
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL - Core
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- 2016-06-18
- Description:
- While thinking about how to best represent the shapes of property constraints, and recognizing that their shape depends on the incoming sh:property link, I came to the conclusion that sh:scopeProperty and sh:scopeInverseProperty are not the best names. Really they select subjects and objects of triples, and this direction is not clear from the current names.
PROPOSAL: Rename sh:scopeProperty to sh:scopeSubjectsOf and sh:scopeInverseProperty to sh:scopeObjectsOf.
For example, this allows us to say that the shapes of the constraint components have sh:scopeObjectsOf sh:property and sh:scopeObjectsOf sh:constraint, without requiring the rdf:type sh:PropertyConstraint. This may help us get rid of sh:context. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-174 (Scopenode): Scopenode does not use RDF node definition [SHACL - Core] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-07-14)
- 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)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-174 (Scopenode): Scopenode does not use RDF node definition [SHACL - Core] (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)
- shapes-ISSUE-169 (sh:scopeProperty naming): Should we rename sh:scopeProperty/InverseProperty [SHACL - Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-06-18)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-169, rename sh:targetProperty to sh:targetObjectsOf and sh:targetInverseProperty to sh:targetSubjectsOf
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/04-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03
Display change log
