Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

It's not good practice to annotate somebody else's URI. Is there no other
mechanism by which I declare property descriptions against a target type?

m.

Michel Dumontier, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
Stanford University
http://dumontierlab.com

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 4/24/2015 12:18, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
>> in any case, there are three fundamental issues, as I currently see it
>> 1. that the specification should indicate how a shape can be defined in
>> terms of an existing vocabulary, rather than be intrinsic to the vocabulary
>> definition (although I don't mind if this is shown as in Example 1)
>>
>
> If (for whatever reason) you don't want to put your constraints into a
> vocabulary file, you could use named graph/file imports to store different
> shape definitions in different named graphs. That's similar to taking an
> OWL ontology and reusing its class definitions in another file (that
> owl:imports the ontology). The SHACL validation is started with a
> parameter, which is the named graph containing the shapes for this session.
> So e.g.
>
> File1
>
> ex:Person
>     a rdfs:Class ;
>     rdfs:label "Person"
> .
>
> File 2:
>
> ex:Person
>     sh:constraint [ ... ] .
>
> Then start validation with File 2 as shapes graph.
>
>  2. that the valueType should be an IRI for a class or a shape, and we
>> should drop sh:shape.
>>
>
> I already responded to that and disagree that we should merge them
> together.
>
>  3. that a simple SPARQL query should or should not return that data are
>> instances of shapes regardless of the validation.
>>
>
> The system designer has a choice between using sh:Shapes and
> Classes-as-shapes. There are all kinds of engineering solutions, including
> named graphs, to take complete control.
>
> Holger
>
>
>