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
