Modified below
Holger
On 2021-09-22 11:31 am, Maatary Okouya wrote:
Before, i go back and do my due diligence,
Would be able to expand that into its full form, i mean representing
explicitly the NodeShape
```
ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:targetClass ex:Person ;
sh:property [ //shprop1
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:path ex:address ;
sh:or (
[ //shprop2
a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:datatype xsd:string ;
]
[ //shprop3
a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:class ex:Address ;
]
)
] .
```
```
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
<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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7821072f-f4f9-4553-930c-e8fc13874afen%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7821072f-f4f9-4553-930c-e8fc13874afen%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/a0b2042a-9100-0798-4165-a81e99ba27cb%40topquadrant.com.
