Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL

The problem is that readers may be misinformed into believing that this domain
and range information actually relates to anything that happens in SHACL.

The subclass information might have some relationship to what happens in
SHACL, so there might be some utility to include it in an official SHACL
document.  Since the domain and range information doesn't, including it in an
official SHACL document seems to me to only be misleading.

peter


On 12/14/2016 01:34 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Something like:
> 
> sh:property rdfs:range sh:PropertyConstraint 
> 
> is simply a declaration. 
> 
> It does not require that inferencing must happen. Just like other published
> vocabularies (e.g., SKOS) do not require their users to perform inferencing.
> 
> Whether the reader of the document chooses to only be informed by these
> statements or do inferencing is the readers choice not the publisher.
> 
> So, I don’t really see what problem the domain and range statements in the
> SHACL vocabulary would create.
> 
> Irene
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> However then the document has to reflect the actual
>> situation with respect to the SHACL vocabulary.  This does not appear to be
>> the case.  There are lots of occurrences of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range in the
>> document.  As SHACL doesn't do RDFS reasoning these are only creating false
>> impressions.
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 22:14:47 UTC