- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:21:50 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 12/3/2014 7:09, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Holger, > > I've looked at your proposal. My summary is that you've defined the > semantics of the Resource Shape vocabulary in terms of SPIN constraints. > The result is that you can add oslc:property triples to any owl:Class and > the SPIN engine will validate the constraints defined in the Resource > Shape spec. You also allow oslc:valueShape to refer to any owl:Class > instead of just oslc:ResourceShape instances. This is very elegant. Nice > work! Glad to hear that. > > I have not reviewed your SPARQL translations for correctness with respect > to the intention of the Resource Shape spec (which is informal). I hope > the WG will define a set of common, high level constraints, define their > precise semantics, and produce equivalent SPARQL, and possibly other, > translations of them. I wasn't exactly sure what oslc:valueShape was supposed to mean: Shall all values of the property match the given shape, or shall only some (i.e. at least one of them). In my current design (not yet published) I am therefore distinguishing between two properties "all" and "some" similar to how OWL does it with owl:allValuesFrom and owl:someValuesFrom. I believe this covers most use cases, and for more complex cases (qualified with "at least 2" etc), a fall-back could be to use SPARQL directly. Holger
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2014 01:24:43 UTC