Re: using classes to control constraints

I believe Michel is saying that if a constraint for an Issue says that
submitter must be a Person and an Employee is a subclass of a Person then
the data should pass validation.

ex:Issue1 ex:submitter ex:Employee1. ex:Employee1 a ex:Employee, the

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>  On 2/12/2015 14:54, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>   i would like to have shapes to be compatible with OWL entailment.
>
>
> The general topic of how shapes interact with entailment is still
> officially undecided. I believe many people here assume that is that users
> can activate entailment on their graph and the language itself doesn't need
> to care about that.
>
>   For instance, if I place a superclass in a constraint, i would like to
> validate positive where i have a subclass in the data.  But I see that as a
> choice that should be specified with the shape, as I could imagine that you
> might also want to validate with only the specified class.
>
>
> Could you clarify whether this is about the engine (which constraints
> checks to perform) or about the constraint check itself (e.g. to also
> accept subclasses of a class for valueType/range of a property). Above you
> sound like you want to former, and LDOM handles this like SPIN did - when
> you attach a constraint to a class then it also applies to its subclasses.
> When you have an instance of a subclass then it will walk up the
> superclasses to make sure that all constraints pass. I wouldn't know how to
> make this a choice - this should IMHO always happen. In SPARQL-based
> constraint checks, you can fine tune the behavior, e.g. by either selecting
> rdfs:subClassOf or rdfs:subClassOf*.
>
> Examples would help.
>
> Thanks
> Holger
>
>