Re: Properties v classes in validation

On 9/1/15 1:24 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I'm not sure that this is an actual issue, so I thought I'd ping the 
> group before making it official...
> Many of the validation requirements coming out of the cultural 
> heritage community are conceived as requirements on "things" (defined 
> as rdf:type classes) not on properties. As an example, a rule might be:
> for every subject of type ex:CulturalObject
> -- there can be one or more subjects in the same graph of type ex:Person

As written above, I see no constraint that could be evaluated. Probably 
you wanted to say "there MUST be one or more subjects..."? If yes, is 
there a triple/relationship between them, but the problem is that you 
don't know which property?

> There are also rules regarding what rdf:type(s) are allowed in general 
> in a graph. (This would be a closed shape.)

I believe this could be expressed (albeit a bit geeky) with an inverse 
property constraint on rdf:type:

     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:scope [
         a sh:InversePropertyScope ;
         sh:predicate rdf:type ;
     ] ;
     sh:inverseProperty [
         sh:predicate rdf:type ;
         sh:allowedValues ( ex:Class1 ex:Class2 ex:Class3 )
     ] .


> SHACL, however, has property validation rules, but no class validation 
> rules. In some cases in CH data, there is a single property that 
> connects the subjects, but for example in the case of cultural 
> resources there are literally hundreds of different properties that 
> can link a person to an object.
> It's possible that we just need to adjust our thinking, but I'd like 
> to hear if others have similar situations with their data.
> Thanks,
> kc

Received on Monday, 31 August 2015 23:13:24 UTC