Re: Two Standards ?

That's fine. We had discussed your proposal of pre-conditions or filters 
before. That could serve as syntactic sugar so that you don't need to 
write this in SPARQL. Another thing that we are discussing is 
ldom:context that can be attached to every constraint. This context 
could be the named graph. Details to be figured out, yet no reason to 
have shapes separated from classes.

Holger


On 2/14/15 11:36 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
>   My preference is to declare a shape, define the constraints, and to 
> associate with a target subgraph (if any). I'd do it similar to what 
> you're proposing for templates / functions.
>
> m.
>
> Michel Dumontier, PhD
> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
> Stanford University
> http://dumontierlab.com
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/14/2015 10:42, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
>         It's not that we would only have a shape for any class, it is
>         that we might have zero or more shapes defined for any subset
>         of the graph of interest, including classes.
>
>         Consider this: I want to assert that all predicates in my RDF
>         graph must be annotated with rdfs:label. I am not, however,
>         stating that this is universally true of RDF predicates, and
>         nor is this a class (although it could be considered a class
>         expression).  We already have RDF(S)/OWL for descriptions and
>         classification, and I think that shapes are not *only* special
>         intensions of ontologically-defined classes.
>
>
>     We have Global Constraints for your use case:
>
>     https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/#global-constraints
>
>
>         all this being said, I think that a shape is itself a class,
>         and can be described using RDF/OWL. It has special properties
>         and special powers that we will imbue it so that intelligent
>         applications correctly apply its WG defined semantics.
>
>
>     +1
>
>     Holger
>
>
>