Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

Hi!

> since ex:myShExShapeA, ex:myShExShapeB are now an rdfs:Class will
> change behavior and will be treated as class shapes.
> This will trigger validation for all instances of ex:myShExShapeA &
> ex:myShExShapeB instead of the expected

as far as I understood, ex:myShExShapeA & ex:myShExShapeB would only be 
used by associating individuals via sh:nodeShape to them. They would not 
be instantiated by themselves.

simon

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2015-04-28 08:09, schrieb Dimitris Kontokostas:
> ok, assuming we have the following shapes, I am skipping the actual
> constraints as they are not relevant
> 
> === before inference ===
> 
> ex:myClassA a rdfs:Class . # directly triggers validation for all
> instances of ex:myClassA
> 
> ex:myClassB a rdfs:Class ; # directly triggers validation for all
> instances of ex:myClassB
>    rdfs:subClassOf ex:myClassA.  # inherits the constraints of
> ex:myClassA
> 
> ex:myShExShapeA a sh:Shape . # works as a linked shape or starting
> node
> 
> ex:myShExShapeB a sh:Shape ; # works as a linked shape or starting
> node
>    rdfs:subClassOf ex:myShExShapeB .  # inherits the constraints of
> ex:myShExShapeA
> 
> === after inference ===
> 
> ex:myClassA a rdfs:Class, a sh:Shape .
> 
> ex:myClassB a rdfs:Class, a sh:Shape ;
>    rdfs:subClassOf ex:myClassA.
> 
> ex:myShExShapeA a rdfs:Class, sh:Shape . # directly triggers
> validation for all instances of ex:myShExShapeA
> 
> ex:myShExShapeB a rdfs:Class, sh:Shape  ;  # directly triggers
> validation for all instances of ex:myShExShapeB
>    rdfs:subClassOf ex:myShExShapeB .
> 
> since ex:myShExShapeA, ex:myShExShapeB are now an rdfs:Class will
> change behavior and will be treated as class shapes.
> This will trigger validation for all instances of ex:myShExShapeA &
> ex:myShExShapeB instead of the expected
> 
> Again, this is based on how I understood your proposal so far. Maybe I
> missed a detail that could clear things up.
> 
> Best,
> Dimitris
> 
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Holger Knublauch
> <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/28/2015 8:41, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>> 
>>> Assuming the shapes reside along with the data graph (which is a
>>> possible scenario) and rdfs inference is applied on the graph,
>>> then the ShEx / stand-alone shape will become an rdfs:Class.
>>> In this case, a shape engine will mistaken the stand-alone shape
>>> to a class-shape right?
>>> Or am I missing a detail from your proposal?
>> 
>> Yes, a sh:Shape would then also be an instance of rdfs:Class. Why
>> would this be a problem? Any shape can also be a class (in this
>> design).
>> 
>> Holger
> 
> --
> 
>  Dimitris Kontokostas
>  Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
> Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org [1], http://http://aligned-project.eu [2]
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas [3]
> 
> Research Group: http://aksw.org [4]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://dbpedia.org
> [2] http://aligned-project.eu
> [3] http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> [4] http://aksw.org

Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 06:17:15 UTC