- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:28:30 -0400
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Holger, oslc:instanceShape was intended for use with Linked Data. The URI of the graph is both a node in the graph and an identifier of a web document that you can HTTP GET. In that sense, the graph URI node is distinguished and may be the subject of an oslc:instanceShape triple. ISSUE-44 appears to refer to a different situation. Thanks for the clarification. -- Arthur On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > Arthur, > > you seem to assume that a graph only contains a single root resource? That > would just be a special case of named graphs. My use cases are > > - if someone opens a file in an editor, the system needs to be able to > quickly figure out which other graphs need to be included, to build a union > graph that can be queried by the editing tool > > - same for constraint checking - if someone validates a whole graph, we need > to know which shapes to collect, where the required SHACL templates are > defined etc. Following all references in linked data style is often not > feasible and not the best approach (although this is another option that we > could support too). > > Holger > > > > > On 4/17/15 6:50 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Holger Knublauch >> <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> oslc:instanceShape looks like sh:nodeShape [1] to me. As far as I >>> understand >>> the OSLC spec, sh:include/sh:library would be closer to >>> oslc:resourceShape. >> >> Holger, >> >> Your writeup of ISSUE-44 says: >> "1) sh:include - points from a graph (e.g. of instances) to other >> graphs (e.g. of class definitions)" >> >> If you are pointing from an instance graph to the shape that describes >> it, then in OSLC you use oslc:instanceShape. This is like on XML >> document pointing to an XML Schema. Is that what sh:include is for? If >> not, I think your writeup is misleading. >> >> -- Arthur > >
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 21:28:57 UTC