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

Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes)

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:38:54 +1000
Message-ID: <54C5707E.7020608@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

you started this discussion by claiming that LDOM cannot handle 
recursion. If you had done a text search for "recurs" you would have found

     a ldom:Function ;
     rdfs:subClassOf ldom:Functions ;
     rdfs:label "violates constraints" ;
     rdfs:comment "Checks whether a given resource (?arg1) fulfills all 
constraints defined for a given class (?arg2) or its superclasses. This 
creates a (possibly recursive) LDOM constraint checker." ;


"The SPARQL query behind the ldom:OrConstraint uses a built-in helper 
function ldom:violatesConstraints to recursively evaluate the nested 

This particular information *was* already there.

You seem to be asking for a formal spec, i.e. the end result of the 
whole WG, *before* we can even start discussing it?


On 1/26/15, 12:25 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> This is not just a matter of details.  It now appears that there are aspects
> of LDOM that are not touched on in the information that has been sent out.
> Without comprehensive information on what LDOM is, discussion of it in the
> working group is not going to be useful.
> peter
> On 01/24/2015 06:34 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> The "magic" is in the SPARQL function ldom:violatesConstraints which has
>> to be implemented by LDOM-compliant SPARQL engines. It recursively calls
>> another LDOM engine with another node and shape as starting points. This
>> function can also be used as entry point into the API, and could become
>> one of the Use Cases in the requirements document.
>> Yes, details will become clearer once written up.
>> Holger
>> On 1/25/2015 12:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 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
> Version: GnuPG v1
> sLeNZfxhwZjVzSgFBecNa7PD7HlpHZfqJHcBUWUL/SG7oQdHNPT8WjX0r445QNgF
> 8Szl352fEZbN4mm+kyT9fOX4GPh7RjLzcC8jjMkSCVH187RwDOf+4e0RiEvcBXbj
> mAXjspJEDpmAJ/h8i9KvRw2YW7+2dp9Lp1XUK7MXNemEVqF8HdagbDPgJmM3yHwH
> N4Sucwe0xpSppWoRojYbOlpYaK1zV79AnIAjVa84Xg5CGSskrFPuUikMIF+5jjpa
> Py6eFfNBXNMRB+eUvlfzaUxfG6/bs6bZJtFAQ4xkUb2TxkwkWFinvmFHCwYdxNc=
> =Vt7w
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2015 22:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 25 January 2015 22:39:27 UTC