Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger)

Holger,

Sorry for the delay. I've been away. Peter and I discussed this issue
last month in this thread: [1]. Your summary aligns well with that
discussion, except for one omitted point which I'll summarize here.

I feel that it is important to give the user control over when
rdfs:subClassOf* is used. We could do this by providing matched pairs
of properties. I proposed the following:

1. No inferencing - match rdf:type directly
sh:valueType
sh:scopeType

2. Follow rdfs:subClassOf triples (match the SPARQL property path
rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*)
sh:valueClass
sh:scopeClass

This proposal has the advantage of using the suffixes "Type" and
"Class" consistently. We use "Type" to mean exactly matching rdf:type.
We use "Class" to mean matching rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*.

People who want subclass inferencing will use the pair sh:valueClass
and sh:scopeClass. People who want exact rdf:type matching will use
the pair sh:valueType and sh:valueClass.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0109.html

-- Arthur

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> Arthur and I had this action, which somehow fell through the cracks although
> I had included my proposal below already into the draft:
>
> My proposal (not coordinated with Arthur yet) would be:
>
> 1) SHACL cannot consistently rely on any graph-level inferencing to be
> available for the given graphs (for various technical reasons).
>
> 2) SHACL should rely on engine-level inferencing that walks the
> rdfs:subClassOf triples where needed, e.g. by generating appropriate SPARQL
> queries:
> a) sh:valueType must also accept subclasses of the given class (e.g. via
> rdfs:subClassOf*) [1]
> b) sh:scopeClass also applies to subclasses (i.e. constraints defined for a
> superclass also apply to instances of the subclass) [2]
>
> 3) SPARQL queries can be annotated with sh:sparqlEntailment to assert the
> presence of a given SPARQL entailment regime [3]
>
> Given that my task here was just to write down a proposal, I consider the
> ACTION-26 done unless Arthur disagrees.
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
> [1]
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueTypePropertyConstraint
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#operation-validateNode
> [3] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-entailment
>
>
> On 5/21/2015 4:12, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/26
>>
>> Assigned to: Arthur Ryman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 00:23:52 UTC