Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 10/6/2015 9:39, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
> I think what we need is a careful analysis of less than a handful of
> set-ups that we can reasonably support, and put best practice recipes for
> those set-ups into our documentation. So I retract my previous comments,
> and now believe that we indeed need to do something here with this ticket.
>
>
> Attached are two images for two graph design patterns for SHACL.
>
> Option A is the simple case where shapes graph = data graph, and this
> logical graph contains shapes, classes and data (instances). The advantage
> of this design is the simplicity - no need to worry about complex setups,
> just throw everything together. The disadvantage is performance because the
> system may be seeing unnecessary triples from the shapes graph, and even
> validate them too.
>
> Option B is a case where shapes graph and data graph are distinct.
> However, since the class definitions (esp the subClassOf triples) are
> needed as part of the data traversal and also to link shapes with classes,
> the classes subgraph is shared between both worlds.
>
> Are there other options?
>

Data graph: data + classes
Shapes graph: only shapes


>
>
>
> Holger
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu,
http://rdfunit.aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: http://aksw.org