- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:12:51 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
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:
ex:MyShape
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 )
] .
Holger
>
> 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