I see, so i was wrong in my interpretation. On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+1 Holger Knublauch wrote:
> > On 2021-09-22 11:01 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: > > I assumed that in my example that the list is made up of blank Property > Shape? am i correct ? > > ``` > ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; > sh:targetClass ex:Person ; > sh:property [ //shprop1 > sh:path ex:address ; > sh:or ( > [ > //shprop2 > sh:datatype xsd:string ; > ] > [ > //shprop3 > sh:class ex:Address ; > ] > ) > ] . > ``` > > The prop2 and prop3 constraints above are node shapes. But they are > applied to all value nodes of the surrounding property shape. > > > Hence i am interested in how one read this informally as much as > formally. I don't think, as in the previous example above, sh:node or > sh:property applies. Hence, little confused on this one > > In general, both types of shapes apply to a focus node and its value > node(s). For node shapes the value node == the focus node. If you would do > > ex:PersonAddressShape > sh:property [ > sh:path ex:address ; > sh:or ( > [ > sh:path ex:postalCode ; > sh:maxLength 4 ; > sh:minCount 1 ; > ] > > ... > > this would mean that all value nodes of ex:address must have another > property ex:postalCode with min length 4. > > So basically the terminology "focus node" and "value node" matters a lot. > Once this is clear, both types of shapes can be used interchangeably. > > In the WG we had long long discussions about whether property shapes and > node shapes can be used interchangeably, and I was hesitant and actually > actively against too much flexibility here because it would confuse users. > Sometimes less is more, and I believe your discussion and input from many > other users have confirmed that the current design requires quite a level > of abstraction to understand properly. > > Holger > > > > > *Note: I have been using all of this thing in my application without > problem, as i had the intuition about how those works and the support of > TBC. But recently i have had to parse shacl, and that is when the issue of > what is what exactly, or what is allowed where comes in. * > > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:44:32 AM UTC+1 Maatary Okouya wrote: > >> Just to conclude and be complete about my last question, which is all >> that sparked the original question actually: >> >> *(Note: I'm using rdfs:subclassOf informally here, just to express the >> idea)* >> >> When we have >> >> ``` >> ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; >> sh:targetClass ex:Person ; >> sh:property [ //shprop1 >> sh:path ex:address ; >> sh:or ( >> [ >> //shprop2 >> sh:datatype xsd:string ; >> ] >> [ >> //shprop3 >> sh:class ex:Address ; >> ] >> ) >> ] . >> ``` >> Are we saying that shProp1 rdfs:subClassOf at least shProp1 or shProp2 >> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:35:56 AM UTC+1 Maatary Okouya wrote: >> >>> 1 - Does that mean that fundamentally, the list of shape in an sh:Or or >>> sh:And is heterogenous ? That is, it may contain both propertyShape and >>> NodeShape at the same time ? >>> >>> 2 - This bring me to the question of how to read this ? >>> >>> >>>> >>> ex:ExampleAndShape a sh:NodeShape ; >>> sh:targetNode ex:ValidInstance, ex:InvalidInstance ; >>> sh:and ( >>> ex:SuperShape >>> [ >>> sh:path ex:property ; >>> sh:maxCount 1 ; >>> ] ) . >>> >>>> >>> >>> 2-1 - With respect to s:SuperShape: is it saying that ex:ExampleAndShap >>> rdfs:SubClassOf ex:SuperShape ? >>> >>> 2-2 - With respect to >>> [ >>> sh:path ex:property ; >>> sh:maxCount 1 ; >>> ] >>> >>> is it saying >>> ex:ExampleAndShape * has the propertyshape i.e. sh:property* >>> [ >>> sh:path ex:property ; >>> sh:maxCount 1 ; >>> ] >>> >>> ??? >>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC+1 Holger Knublauch >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 2021-09-22 9:54 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Taken from the specification: >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> A node shape is a shape <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-shape> in >>>> the shapes graph <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-shapes-graph> that >>>> is not the subject <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-subject> of a >>>> triple <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-rdf-triple> with *sh:path* as >>>> its predicate <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-predicate>. SHACL >>>> instances <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-shacl-instance> of >>>> sh:NodeShape cannot >>>> have a value <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-value> for the >>>> property sh:path. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Yet when talking Or Constraint or And Constraint, that takes list of >>>> shapes, we find example like what follow: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ex:SuperShape a sh:NodeShape ; >>>> sh:property [ sh:path ex:property ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] . >>>> >>>> ex:ExampleAndShape a sh:NodeShape ; >>>> sh:targetNode ex:ValidInstance, ex:InvalidInstance ; >>>> sh:and ( >>>> ex:SuperShape >>>> [ >>>> sh:path ex:property ; >>>> sh:maxCount 1 ; >>>> ] ) . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With the following explanation >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> The following example illustrates the use of sh:and in a shape to >>>> specify the condition that certain focus nodes have exactly one value >>>> of ex:property. This is achieved via the conjunction of a separate named >>>> shape (ex:SuperShape) which specifies the minimum count, and a *blank >>>> node shape* that additionally specifies the maximum count. As shown >>>> here, sh:and can be used to implement a specialization mechanism between >>>> shapes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How on earth is this a Blank Node shape if it is the subject of an >>>> sh:path, am I missing something ? >>>> >>>> It should be a "blank property shape". I have recorded a bug report to >>>> the spec's Errata: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/140 >>>> >>>> Note the error is in an informative block of text, so it doesn't change >>>> implementations. >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing this out >>>> Holger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> [ >>>> sh:path ex:property ; >>>> sh:maxCount 1 ; >>>> ] >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/a36d9325-ff9a-4329-86a3-64a463798b1dn%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/a36d9325-ff9a-4329-86a3-64a463798b1dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/50870f8e-6764-45f3-a775-5960442da2e0n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/50870f8e-6764-45f3-a775-5960442da2e0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/c4221dc6-d4f5-4cbb-8aff-02f6e533c70fn%40googlegroups.com.
