Logical Constraint Components with multiple SHACL lists are underspecified

[bergos]

The specification isn't clear about what an implementation should do if a shape has multiple lists of logical constraint components of the same type. The following example could be interpreted as

1. (shapeA || shapeB) && (shapeC || shapeD)
2. shapeA || shapeB || shapeC || shapeD

ex:shapeRoot a sh:NodeShape;
  sh:or
    (ex:shapeA ex:shapeB),
    (ex:shapeC ex:shapeD).

It looks like most implementations use option 2, but it should be written more clearly in the specification.

[HolgerKnublauch]

All constraints in SHACL eventually get ANDed for execution, i.e. the correct interpretation is 1. The target nodes need be A or B, and then also C or D.