W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Validation entry points (was: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM))

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:06:56 +1000
Message-ID: <54C46BE0.3010609@topquadrant.com>
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>

On 1/24/15, 11:36 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> I think this is getting off-topic and leaning towards constraint 
> discovery. In the same way one can define different (ShExC/RS)shapes 
> in different datasets one can also define different class constraints 
> in different datasets.
>
> I think Holger's point was about the constraint definition. As also 
> Peter pointed out we have requirements for three types of constraints
> 1) Constraints on instances of a class
> 2) Global constraints and
> 3) Shape constraints in the way ShEXc & RS define them
> Holger's suggestion probably has good coverage for 1 & 2 but needs 
> further input for 3.

Yes, exactly. I need more input on how the stand-alone shapes are 
supposed to be used. This takes us to the question how does the 
validation start. LDOM has two starting points:

a) Does ?resource match the constraints attached to ?shape:
     ldom:violatesConstraints(?resource, ?shape) : xsd:boolean

b) Does the current graph contain any constraint violations?

Both use rdf:type triples to link resources with their supposed shapes, 
and ldom:GlobalConstraints are executed in b) only. I need to better 
understand how the process is started in ShEx and Resource Shapes, and 
which auxiliary triples are needed for that. I can see oslc:instanceShape

http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/#instanceShape

which has almost exactly the same role as rdf:type in the current LDOM 
draft.

Thanks,
Holger
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2015 04:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 25 January 2015 04:07:31 UTC