Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes

Your sh:classScope looks exactly like the sh:classShape used in my 
previous email, only in the inverse direction. I don't see how this 
avoids mingling between classes and shapes - it just adds a level of 
indirection. Selection still happens by rdf:types and rdfs:subClassOf 
inheritance still remains meaningful. It's just another syntax for the 
same concepts.

Holger


On 4/29/2015 10:51, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I propose that there be no mingling of RDFS classes and shapes, constraints,
> or anything else in the SHACL specification.  This proposal, I believe, is
> consonant with Stardog ICV, with Shape Expressions, and with Resource
> Shapes.  Selection of which nodes to verify would be done using mechanisms
> different from those used in RDFS, although some selection would interact
> with RDFS classes and properties.  One specific set of mechanisms that work
> this way can be found in
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-sparql where there are
> several kinds of scoping links that say which nodes are to be checked
> against a shape.
>
> One of these kinds of scoping links links to a class, and requires all
> instances of the class be checked against a shape.  So for checking that all
> people's parents are people one could* say:
>
> [ sh:classScope ex:Person ;
>    sh:shape [ sh:predicate ex:parent ;
>               sh:valueType ex:Person ] ]
>
> peter
>
>
>
> * This is written in the representationally relaxed variant.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQCr9AAoJECjN6+QThfjz3vcIANEl+Zjrp6eOri6cA66e5Yk5
> gvI/N3/1bf4UxNJyLmHPp8diqHKo97ZcRD4lZw/Haf6hsGoTEpThlNBKaCXTwpv0
> QZJzJHcyR+9thYmSbFElUVVu9cWH2sHakHANCbyXzmVbuemfGDfVdu3ud3V/QlP1
> Br5k+PSIPRImVWXGszC9/32HmP/l41Wu6nEcExsz3FjrR1xAhGHeavdONifjhBaU
> pLBnp4AkNkkHzhmXPLKevgokmx3vZ/WztTfc2YUhZNvueY4utaM4RTKzGkmT8uSe
> CzK6p1Svr9jeJ6ecEqqCxw3NvhYlkZ94+iI4wQtxMIGhkKmyjSJlQk2yoVokBVM=
> =txRC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 01:22:28 UTC