Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints

Holger,

I think we ought to clarify that what you present here isn't all it takes 
because it relies on having shx:allowedValueNamespaces defined somewhere, 
presumably using the SPARQL extension.

I know you wrote "an end-user syntax" and the implication is that some 
advanced-user has defined such a template for the end-user but we need to 
be careful not to set the wrong expectation.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 08/03/2015 03:29:13 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" 
> <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
> Date: 08/03/2015 03:30 PM
> Subject: Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
> 
> This could be represented in SHACL using a template, with an end-user 
> syntax such as
> 
> ex:MyShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:property [
>          a shx:AllowedValueNamespacesConstraint ;
>          sh:predicate ps:siteDesignation ;
>          shx:allowedValueNamespaces ( 
> "http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/DesignationValue/" ) ;
>          sh:valueClass skos:Concept ;
>      ] .
> 
> In the above scenario I am assuming that the algorithm will check that 
> all values of the given property must be URIs starting with one of the 
> enumerated strings (using STRSTARTS in SPARQL). It would not go to the 
> web to check whether there is actually a Graph at that namespace - this 
> would be outside of what SPARQL can do right now.
> 
> I cannot comment on whether this particular pattern should become part 
> of the Core vocabulary too, but the whole point of the extension 
> mechanism is to allow anyone to represent and publish their own favorite 

> constraint design patterns, so that they don't rely on the choices made 
> by a particular working group in the year 2015.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/4/2015 5:39, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > Phil,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I thought that I had covered this in use 
> > case #34 [1], and at one point I asked if all of these criteria were 
> > met by the requirements and I was assured that they were. This is a 
> > key use case for the cultural heritage community, so if there are any 
> > doubts that these requirements can be met we need to address this. 
> > Perhaps the was to resolve this is to provide test cases. There seem 
> > to be some functional versions of SHACL that could be used to test 
> > this, if I'm not mistaken. Would you be able to provide some test 
data?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > kc
> > [1] 
> > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/#uc37-defining-
> allowed-required-values
> >
> > On 8/3/15 9:48 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've had an opportunity to take a look at the SHACL work today and I
> >> notice one of the use cases looks set to be missed - although only 
just.
> >>
> >> The UCR doc includes the one about self-describing Linked Data [1] 
which
> >> talks about the value of a property being a skos:Concept. Are you
> >> considering making this a little tougher, i.e. that the value of a 
given
> >> property is a concept defined in a specific scheme?
> >>
> >> I see that SHACL allows the enumeration of values [2], but I want to 
be
> >> able to say "any value from the SKOS Concept scheme at <foo>". It 
looks
> >> like SHACL won't support that?
> >>
> >> Use Case: INSPIRE
> >>
> >> INSPIRE [0] - the European Union's obligatory set of standards for
> >> environmental and geospatial data - has a handy registry of SKOS 
concept
> >> schemes [3]. In one of my projects, I've been working on creating RDF
> >> vocabularies that are compatible with the INSPIRE data model, such as
> >> the one about protected sites [4]. That has a property
> >> ps:siteDesignation for which the range is defined as skos:Concept but
> >> really what it should say is:
> >>
> >> the value of this property should be a skos:Concept in the scheme at
> >> http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/DesignationValue/.
> >>
> >> It would be inappropriate to enumerate the concepts in that concept
> >> scheme (there are 6 of them) since it is under a different
> >> organisation's change control.
> >>
> >> I recognise that this leads to the possibility that a graph that is
> >> valid today may become invalid if the INSPIRE Registry were to be
> >> amended but that's a management task for the European Commission to
> >> worry about (i.e. the people responsible for the INSPIRE data model) 
and
> >> they would need to be mindful of such situations which would occur
> >> whether we were talking about RDF graphs or dollops of GML, so I 
don't
> >> think that's a show stopper here.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >> Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >> [0] http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/#uc28-self-
> describing-linked-data-resources 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> #AbstractAllowedValuesPropertyConstraint 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [3] http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/registry/
> >>
> >> [4] http://www.w3.org/2015/03/inspire/ps
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>