Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
wrote:

> 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.
>

But if a shape is associated with a class it has different validation
behavior.
Or not in this proposal?


>
> 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
>>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: http://aksw.org