Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

But is not the entailment of an owl:Restriction *different from* checking
to see whether the data has that restriction?  You could do this in OWL, in
part, by defining the necessary and sufficient conditions, but of course,
we have unique name and open world assumption to deal with...

in any case, there are three fundamental issues, as I currently see it
1. that the specification should indicate how a shape can be defined in
terms of an existing vocabulary, rather than be intrinsic to the vocabulary
definition (although I don't mind if this is shown as in Example 1)
2. that the valueType should be an IRI for a class or a shape, and we
should drop sh:shape.
3. that a simple SPARQL query should or should not return that data are
instances of shapes regardless of the validation.

m.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 4/24/15 11:58 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2015 11:04, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>>
>>> right, i'm so used to OWL classification, that's how i formulated it to
>>> make sense initially. but in the approach you're suggesting now, one
>>> asserts that all instances of ex:Issue are instances of ex:IssueShape, and
>>> you check that they satisfy the constraints - throwing an error if not.
>>> The worry I have is that if you just have a simple SPARQL query you
>>> trivially "know" that every instance of ex:Issue is an instance of
>>> ex:IssueShape.
>>>
>>
>>  Sorry I cannot follow. Where does the SPARQL query come into play and
>> why is there a worry?
>>
>>  If ex:Issue subClassOf ex:IssueShape, will an instance of ex:Issue not
> also be an instance of ex:IssueShape - without validation - or does this
> not really matter?
>
>   Yes it would count as an instance of ex:IssueShape too, but I don't see
> a problem with that. When you define an owl:Restriction via
> rdfs:subClassOf, then the instances of the main class also become implicit
> instances of the Restriction.
>
> Holger
>
>