Consider allowing sh:name and sh:description on NodeShapes

[danielbeeke]

Currently the SHACL spec states that sh:name and sh:description may be used on Property shapes. It does not state this for NodeShapes.

This is the quote:

If present, tools SHOULD prefer those locally specified labels over globally specified labels at the rdf:Property itself.

(link)

Could it be considered adding to the spec that sh:name and sh:description can also be used on NodeShapes?

The use case is that a system containing NodeShapes might want to display the shapes with a local name and description.

[HolgerKnublauch]

The role of node shapes is similar to classes, and the implicit target pattern aligns node shapes with classes. We have several customers that wanted to use skos:prefLabel and skos:definition instead of rdfs:label and rdfs:comment for their classes. If present, those should be preferred over the rdfs defaults. Given that these (skos:) are already established properties, there is the argument that it's not the business of SHACL to generate yet another pair of properties for that purpose.

With property shapes the situation was different because the intent was to use these names/descriptions for the use of the property (not the property shape).