You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jena.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2020/07/21 08:29:31 UTC
Re: SHACL-C
The grammar does not have words
'order', 'group', 'description', 'name', 'defaultValue'
in the propertyParam or nodeParam rules
So you can't concat the sh namespace with the token string.
propertyParam :
'deactivated' | 'severity' | 'message' |
'class' | 'datatype' | 'nodeKind' |
'minExclusive' | 'minInclusive' | 'maxExclusive' | 'maxInclusive' |
'minLength' | 'maxLength' | 'pattern' | 'flags' | 'languageIn' |
'uniqueLang' |
'equals' | 'disjoint' | 'lessThan' | 'lessThanOrEquals' |
'qualifiedValueShape' | 'qualifiedMinCount' | 'qualifiedMaxCount' |
'qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint' |
'closed' | 'ignoredProperties' | 'hasValue' | 'in' ;
Andy
On 20/07/2020 23:34, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> not quite sure what you mean: is the spec unclear, or does it have an
> error? If yes, what would be better wording?
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
> On 20/07/2020 19:03, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19/07/2020 23:21, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> On 19/07/2020 19:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Oddly, sh:group/sh:order aren't in SHACLC - they look like they got
>>>> overlooked as they fit is quite naturally into the grammar. Maybe
>>>> the WG focus was validation and these aren't "validation".
>>>
>>> All terms from the sh: namespace are supported at property shapes and
>>> node shapes, see
>>>
>>> https://w3c.github.io/shacl/shacl-compact-syntax/#rule-propertyValue
>>
>> "concatenating the sh namespace with the string value of /propertyParam/"
>>
>> ("string value" taken to mean the string that is the token)
>>
>> Today, 2020-07-20, the words aren't in the propertyParam grammar rule.
>>
>> Andy
Re: SHACL-C
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 21/07/2020 10:07, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2020 18:29, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> The grammar does not have words
>>
>> 'order', 'group', 'description', 'name', 'defaultValue'
>>
>> in the propertyParam or nodeParam rules
>>
>> So you can't concat the sh namespace with the token string.
>
> Thanks. I have mixed this up and thought I had generalized that rule.
> Should have checked :)
>
> Another missing term is sh:defaultValue. So how do people feel about
> adding that line to the grammar? Sounds like an easy fix.
>
> Further we could theoretically add sh:name and (less attractive)
> sh:description.
>
> And shall we add subClassOf?
The form
>> shapeClass ex:Company rdfs:subClassOf ex:Organization {
does not cover cases I am coming across.
My ideal is all description in one file. Modularising using IMPORT for
this is not nice. The domain is SHACLC shapes but also RDFS sub*of.
That means a general RDFS subClassOf declaration, not specific to
implicitClass shapes. They (implicitClass shapes) are a pattern in
SHACL, not fundamental to SHACL.
The class may not be a shape and it would apply for "class=" and throughout.
Having subClassOf and subPropertyOf in the same file as SHACLC makes for
as single place for a "schema".
CLASS ex:Company .
CLASS ex:Company subClassOf ex:Organization .
(the DOTS are unnecessary - like PREFIX).
The shapeClass-subClassOf might be useful as a short cut.
Andy
>
> Holger
>
>
>>
>>
>> propertyParam :
>>
>> 'deactivated' | 'severity' | 'message' |
>> 'class' | 'datatype' | 'nodeKind' |
>> 'minExclusive' | 'minInclusive' | 'maxExclusive' | 'maxInclusive' |
>> 'minLength' | 'maxLength' | 'pattern' | 'flags' | 'languageIn' |
>> 'uniqueLang' |
>> 'equals' | 'disjoint' | 'lessThan' | 'lessThanOrEquals' |
>> 'qualifiedValueShape' | 'qualifiedMinCount' | 'qualifiedMaxCount' |
>> 'qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint' |
>> 'closed' | 'ignoredProperties' | 'hasValue' | 'in' ;
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> On 20/07/2020 23:34, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> not quite sure what you mean: is the spec unclear, or does it have an
>>> error? If yes, what would be better wording?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/07/2020 19:03, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19/07/2020 23:21, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>> On 19/07/2020 19:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly, sh:group/sh:order aren't in SHACLC - they look like they
>>>>>> got overlooked as they fit is quite naturally into the grammar.
>>>>>> Maybe the WG focus was validation and these aren't "validation".
>>>>>
>>>>> All terms from the sh: namespace are supported at property shapes
>>>>> and node shapes, see
>>>>>
>>>>> https://w3c.github.io/shacl/shacl-compact-syntax/#rule-propertyValue
>>>>
>>>> "concatenating the sh namespace with the string value of
>>>> /propertyParam/"
>>>>
>>>> ("string value" taken to mean the string that is the token)
>>>>
>>>> Today, 2020-07-20, the words aren't in the propertyParam grammar rule.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
Re: SHACL-C
Posted by Holger Knublauch <ho...@topquadrant.com>.
On 21/07/2020 18:29, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> The grammar does not have words
>
> 'order', 'group', 'description', 'name', 'defaultValue'
>
> in the propertyParam or nodeParam rules
>
> So you can't concat the sh namespace with the token string.
Thanks. I have mixed this up and thought I had generalized that rule.
Should have checked :)
Another missing term is sh:defaultValue. So how do people feel about
adding that line to the grammar? Sounds like an easy fix.
Further we could theoretically add sh:name and (less attractive)
sh:description.
And shall we add subClassOf?
Holger
>
>
> propertyParam :
>
> 'deactivated' | 'severity' | 'message' |
> 'class' | 'datatype' | 'nodeKind' |
> 'minExclusive' | 'minInclusive' | 'maxExclusive' | 'maxInclusive' |
> 'minLength' | 'maxLength' | 'pattern' | 'flags' | 'languageIn' |
> 'uniqueLang' |
> 'equals' | 'disjoint' | 'lessThan' | 'lessThanOrEquals' |
> 'qualifiedValueShape' | 'qualifiedMinCount' | 'qualifiedMaxCount' |
> 'qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint' |
> 'closed' | 'ignoredProperties' | 'hasValue' | 'in' ;
>
> Andy
>
> On 20/07/2020 23:34, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> not quite sure what you mean: is the spec unclear, or does it have an
>> error? If yes, what would be better wording?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 20/07/2020 19:03, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/07/2020 23:21, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> On 19/07/2020 19:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly, sh:group/sh:order aren't in SHACLC - they look like they
>>>>> got overlooked as they fit is quite naturally into the grammar.
>>>>> Maybe the WG focus was validation and these aren't "validation".
>>>>
>>>> All terms from the sh: namespace are supported at property shapes
>>>> and node shapes, see
>>>>
>>>> https://w3c.github.io/shacl/shacl-compact-syntax/#rule-propertyValue
>>>
>>> "concatenating the sh namespace with the string value of
>>> /propertyParam/"
>>>
>>> ("string value" taken to mean the string that is the token)
>>>
>>> Today, 2020-07-20, the words aren't in the propertyParam grammar rule.
>>>
>>> Andy