ISSUE-41: Using property paths to refer to values/types?

property paths (sh:path?)

Using property paths to refer to values/types?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Simon Steyskal

Opened on:

2015-04-07

Description:

Hi!

Do we (want to) support property paths for referring to other values/types?

Consider e.g. a concept ex:Track with two properties ex:kmLeft and ex:kmRight and I want to state, that ex:kmLeft must have a value > than the value of ex:kmRight. How could I achieve that in SHACL?

ex:Track a rdfs:Class;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:kmLeft;
sh:minExclusive (path to ex:kmRight's value);
] .

Probably, I could use a sh:Function to retrieve the respective ex:kmRight value? ->

ex:Track a rdfs:Class;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:kmLeft;
sh:minExclusive ex:kmRightValue;
] .

ex:kmRightValue a sh:Function;
sh:returnType xsd:integer;
sh:argument [
sh:predicate sh:arg1 ;
sh:valueType ex:Track;
];
sh:sparql """
SELECT (?value AS ?result)
WHERE {
?arg1 ex:kmRight ?value .
}
""" .

Should that be the "proposed best practice"?

simon

(In Section [1.3] there is still a reference to a property called sh:path which seems to be outdated?)

[1.3] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview-advanced

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-41: Progress (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-07)
2. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 23 June 2016 (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2016-06-23)
3. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 23 June 2016 (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-06-23)
4. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 23 June 2016 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-06-23)
5. Re: ISSUE-139 proposal for today's telco (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-06-17)
6. ISSUE-41: Suggested results and validator vocabulary changes (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-06-14)
7. Re: RDF Data Shapes agenda for 9 June 2016 (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2016-06-09)
8. Re: RDF Data Shapes agenda for 9 June 2016 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-06-09)
9. ISSUE-41: Yet another take on property paths (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-06-03)
10. How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-18)
11. Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-11)
12. Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-03-11)
13. Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-11)
14. Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-10)
15. Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-03-10)
16. Selected problems with Proposal 4 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-10)
17. Re: ISSUE-41: Property paths (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2016-03-10)
18. Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-09)
19. ISSUE-41: Property paths (was: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-03-09)
20. Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2016-03-09)
21. Re: shapes-ISSUE-97 (sh:derivedValues): Proposal to define constraints using derived values [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-10-06)
22. Re: ISSUE-41 : new thoughts on property paths (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-07-17)
23. ISSUE-41 : new thoughts on property paths (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2015-07-17)
24. shapes-ACTION-22: Propose a "more compelling" use case for = and != for property paths (issue-41, issue-42) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-05-07)
25. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-09)
26. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-09)
27. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-09)
28. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-09)
29. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-09)
30. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-09)
31. SPARQL in SHACL (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec]) (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-04-08)
32. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-04-08)
33. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-08)
34. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-04-08)
35. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-04-08)
36. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-04-08)
37. Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-07)
38. shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-04-07)

Related notes:

Display change log