- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:21:34 +0100
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Michel's request is going farther in saying that if a range of > property values in a constraint is defined as members of a superclass, > data that uses members of its subclasses for the property values > should also pass validation. ah, I didn't get that.. thanks for clarifying! simon --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys--- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2015-02-12 18:09, schrieb Irene Polikoff: > I don't think so. > > Everything said so far, confirms the view that constraints stated on a > superclass must hold on subclasses. > > Michel's request is going farther in saying that if a range of > property values in a constraint is defined as members of a superclass, > data that uses members of its subclasses for the property values > should also pass validation. > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I guess that would contradict the general notion of inheritance, >> i.e. all constraints stated on a superclass must hold on its >> subclasses too and there should be no constraints that are not >> passed to a superclass' children. >> >> simon >> >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >> Von: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com> >> Datum: 12.02.2015 05:54 (GMT+01:00) >> An: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> >> Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Holger >> Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org >> Betreff: Re: using classes to control constraints >> >> Hi, >> >> i would like to have shapes to be compatible with OWL entailment. >> 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. >> >> m >> >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> >> There is no interaction with entailment or querying. The data is >> what it is. >> >> Constraints describe what the data should be in order to pass the >> validation. They are used to validate the data that is available. >> They don't change the data. >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 02/11/2015 04:16 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>> When is it supposed to be checked? >>> >>> When constraint checking/data validation is invoked >> >> Only then? What is the interaction with entailment? And querying? >> >>> What reporting needs to be done? >>> >>> As I recall, there has been a discussion about what should be >> returned >>> and a few people provided examples of the kind of reporting they >> want. It >>> has been captured in the LDOM document. >> >> That was for explicit invocation of validation. If type >> assertions can be >> made to shapes then I think that much more needs to be done. >> >>> Why are you asking? >> >> Because, explicit typing to shapes needs to be integrated into the >> rest of >> RDF, RDFS, and SPARQL. >> >> peter >> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> So there is in an error in an RDF graph. How is that supposed to >> work? >>> When is it supposed to be checked? What reporting needs to be >> done? >>> >>> peter >>> >>> >>> On 02/11/2015 01:08 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>>> It is intended for validation and works over data that exists. >> So, if >>>> ex:a is not ex:p ex:q, there is an error. >>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 02/11/2015 10:42 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>>>> <What would it mean to assert that an object belongs to a shape >> via >>>>> an rdf:type link?> >>> >>>>> I believe it would mean that constraints defined for the shape >> apply >>>>> to the object. >>> >>> >>>> So I can infer things from this assertion? For example, if >> ex:shape >>>> requires that the value of ex:p be ex:q then does ex:a rdf:type >>>> ex:shape . imply ex:a ex:p ex:q . >>> >>>> peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1 >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2/X1AAoJECjN6+QThfjztwYH/RGKnTIPGMQrrJb9OtignRAT >> MNcGm2fkh39D8IpUkoE85JAKzG9NJcvdI74748JJppdUnrJPbCwXWlX9HnNDNOW4 >> lbgTK8Y3eiDr7liavMsK+7ZbuF/QAocAXaWU9dPbwdrCXHFY1jmfY6y1H0KlfvST >> vvyAh12zhzHFxgksALkxKEvnSaGL6rHlZUoNh6Ke/8gZKn5Z2B0yQJZvkJdVU5sa >> j1P/BrzLd5QNIUgiSQJklQecXN8sTZt5Cd96ePGlGD6hn9aLnVUKgbNH5BvpMchw >> z51tUAaXAQFK1RtoRec+PYiJxaXRQ3UK3ZZQ1JsWSIq5350vx16j7jXgyc5+4eg= >> =8Iey >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 18:21:59 UTC