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

In case it wasn't clear, i meant that I don't support direct annotation of a class. the target of a shape should be referenced by the shape.

m



> On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I also support this approach as a direct association of a shape to a class. Indirection comes when we try to guess it from other triples associated with the shape resource.
> 
> Best,
> Dimitris
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2015 03:33, "Michel Dumontier" <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I support this proposal. I believe it is important that shapes and classes be considered different, and that it is user-defined shapes that may refer to class expressions or other shapes.
>> 
>> m.
>> 
>> Michel Dumontier, PhD
>> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
>> Stanford University
>> http://dumontierlab.com
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> 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-----