Re: Can Shapes always be Classes?

FWIW...

On 06 Nov 2014, at 15:20, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

>>>>>> - In the original Resource Shapes and ShEx, Shapes are stand-alone entities
>>>>>> that may or may not be associated with a class. Other mechanisms than
>>>>>> rdf:type are used to point from instances to their shapes.

Well, actually, that's what I meant by...

>> 1)
>> shapes:constrainedBy
>>   domain: either a Class Definition or a unary SPARQL Query.
>>   range:  either a Class Definition or a unary SPARQL Query.
>> 
>> Semantics: any resource wich is entailed to satisfy the lhs has to be entailed the rhs (obviously, this can be combined with any entailment regimes R , i.e. "entailed" here meaning to be a certain answer it can be the certain under entailment regime R.)
>> 
>> 
>> 2)

>> shapes:domainConstrainedBy
>>   domain: either a property name or a unary SPARQL Query.
>>   range:  either a Class Definition or a unary SPARQL Query.
>> 
>> Semantics: for any resource P that is entailed to satisfy the lhs, any subject S of any triple S P O known to be entailed by the dataset, has to be has to be entailed the rhs.
>> 
>> 
>> 3)
>> shapes:rangeConstrainedBy
>>   domain: either a property name or a unary SPARQL Query.
>>   range:  either a Class Definition or a unary SPARQL Query.

... any constraints on resources or properties can either constrain a Class/Property where the particular instances are either identifiable by a class/propery name  *or a unary (i.e. one SELECTED variable) SPARQL query* that returns the instances that the shape shall constrain.

best,
Axel

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 15:13:42 UTC