Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

Well then I'm not understanding what you mean by "shapes in the data 
graph", or maybe by "data graph". This is no different from how SHACL 
has always been described, and your statement that they are 'unrelated 
triples' negates the "*in* the data graph". I suspect folks are talking 
about files in the sense of physical files, but then this discussion 
doesn't seem to be one that concerns the working group -- it's an 
implementation detail that doesn't change the standard.

On the other hand, Dimitris' suggestion that there be a way to "call" a 
particular shape from a graph makes sense. He has asked for a way to 
call a set of SHACL constraints directly from a vocabulary definition, 
if I understand correctly, while an XML schema is designated in instance 
data. If there is such a function in SHACL would it need to cover both 
vocabularies and instance data?

kc

On 10/11/15 3:36 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/15 12:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/9/15 4:19 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Also, some people will put everything into one file (option 1) so our
>>> tools need to live with that situation anyway. There is no harm in
>>> having the shapes as data. For some use cases, shapes *are* data.
>>
>> Putting shapes in the graph will be awkward (at best) when the shape
>> is closed. It would require one to write an ignore statement that
>> includes every shape property used.
>
> I don't see how these topics are related. In practical terms, having
> shapes in the data graph only leads to unrelated triples IMHO, e.g.
>
> ex:MyInstance
>      sh:nodeShape ex:MyShape ;
>      ex:someProperty 42 .
>
> ex:MyShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:constraint [
>          a sh:ClosedShapeConstraint ;
>          sh:ignoredProperties [ sh:nodeShape ] ;
>      ] ;
>      sh:property [
>          sh:predicate ex:someProperty ;
>          sh:datatype xsd:integer ;
>      ] .
>
> What different would the presence of the definition of ex:MyShape in the
> data make to the validation of ex:MyInstance?
>
> More generally: does anyone have cases where having shapes in the
> dataGraph causes problems?
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>
>> That leads me to conclude, by the way, that the ignore function might
>> need to work on namesapaces, not just individual properties. And, of
>> course, that doesn't work for the base namespace.
>>
>> kc
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 14:30:27 UTC