- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:33:01 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I still don't see how LDOM can handle this example if it is all supposed to be translatable into SPARQL queries. Perhaps a definition of LDOM will make this clear, but I don't think that one has been presented as of yet. peter On 01/24/2015 06:23 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 1/25/2015 11:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >> I can't tell whether this does or not, as there appears to be a missing >> bit after ldom:predicate. > > Ok, the missing bit was a left-over from when I noticed that we don't > have a better syntax for owl:hasValue. I have meanwhile added a new > template using ldom:hasValue to improve readability (not that it matters > for the recursion though): > > ex:Polentoni a rdfs:Class ; # or ldom:Shape, or nothing ldom:property [ > ldom:predicate ex:livesIn ; ldom:hasValue ex:NorthernItaly ; ] ; > ldom:constraint [ a ldom:ShapeConstraint ; ldom:predicate ex:knows ; > ldom:all ex:Polentoni ; ] . > >> However, I don't think that it could, as least so far as I understand >> LDOM, as the class definition below appears to require that >> ex:Polentoni is asserted on some individuals, and the point of the >> example is that there are no assertions involving ex:Polentoni in the >> input. > > No, this is a misunderstanding. When ldom:all is used, it will simply > check whether the instance matches all conditions specified by the given > class/shape. The rdf:type triple is not restricted by the shape, > therefore no rdf:type needs to be present on the valid instances. > >> >> If LDOM does work by doing recognition, then this should be >> highlighted. > > I have added a sentence > > Note that the matching values do not have to be instances of the given > shape, i.e. no <code>rdf:type</code> triple is required. > > Needless to say the overall specification needs work to clarify and > better explain these details - some of them are currently well hidden in > the implementation (Turtle code/SPARQL queries). > > HTH and thanks for the example. I hope we agree recursion is covered. > Holger > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUxFXdAAoJECjN6+QThfjzyDUH/A3V0TYtE0vm1KhSTNEATS4L DELpPZiq7kGfl7+3VUJVOP++wRMBymrko4PevN6qxbxvK/VCRYMmnHbvdynlWi8U bkPrYSQP+6E5/ixzDs0mjScnQo0SdYOZve+t98P6wmm6J3uM1FeZOdMlPsUzuaOd L14Cxs/Dm23vHQ5Qp4paECOTTQmP/Rv3M3VLc/HJo3n2jzB7/CvP9FS6EdtVUIcJ YZarC4rt7GdR3EX6baxRe41wxT212TPH24RxXQxFst/ZY9SNdSylab/QP+eeWYY8 mMFm6MhIVR0Zrgu3vPnoFRfYln5VMDijBlEK+I+As6IW0WV6/BmEdf1silp4eJI= =VSkC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2015 02:33:36 UTC