- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:28:39 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/24/2015 05:16 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 6/25/2015 5:47, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 06/18/2015 03:07 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> I suggest we split the topic into several resolutions: >>> >>> >>> Proposal 1: SHACL should include a property sh:sparqlEntailment that >>> can be used to specify a required inferencing level for each SPARQL >>> query, as described in >>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-entailment >> Why would this only be for SPARQL? If an entailment regime is used, >> it should be used for all relevant SHACL constructs, such as >> sh:valueType. > > I am open to alternative proposals: specify the entailment per Shape, > per Graph, as an argument to the validation engine, or not support this > at all and leave it outside of the spec? I have no strong opinion. > >> >>> Proposal 2: sh:valueType must also match subclasses, with its SPARQL >>> implementation using rdfs:subClassOf* as described in >>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueTypePropertyCo nstraint >>> >> >>> The >> SPARQL implementation does not match how subclasses are defined in any >> existing W3C specification, assuming that the recipe is exhaustive. > > To avoid battles about who owns which terms, we could state that we only > look at rdfs:subClassOf* triples, avoiding the term "subclasses". > >> >>> Proposal 3: SHACL shall include another property sh:directValueType >>> that only matches the directly asserted types (for OSLC use case). >> What is the definition supporting "directly asserted"? > > In SPARQL: EXISTS { ?this rdf:type ?directValueType } Is this as stated in the input documents? After any initial processing by the triple store? After forward-chaining rules? After entailment regimies?? >>> Proposal 4: sh:scopeClass must also include instances of subclasses, >>> with its SPARQL implementation using rdfs:subClassOf* >> The SPARQL implementation does not match how subclasses are defined in >> any existing W3C specification, assuming that the recipe is >> exhaustive. > > See above. > >> >>> Proposal 5: SHACL shall include a high-level mechanism to express >>> the scope of direct instances. (Details on that depend on our >>> resolution to the general scoping topic - I hope we allow templates >>> there). >> What is "scope of direct instances"? > > Any ?this where { ?this rdf:type ?directScopeClass } > > If entailment is activated on the graph, this may include additional > matches. > > Holger > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVi2dXAAoJECjN6+QThfjzbisH/jOw+dloNJYs1/xTyIIrGcgh jJl5mt4EHfzYB/gUVzi1Q951VrHJKV5b44HMp7bRBFD7vPiCVAmqnjCXNm6Nl6RH Z+l7iQSHQVj8xf590Gv6YNBxqQIT5NMobWViSd/x8vUX8Yzhdj8PoedSIhPWSdWu IcC3WaSnGVjq+dv8bIcJcNwXCN5kMAn7Gnf0Wu+2jTSYqkhfSADjIxZTbL7/WPOQ e1Y5MDeQbeC1sNkWaM7e3BCJ3scLVHMSOZ+PHpUfShrlS1yjXKyjCetLma12RnXu ST0vHfpF7ccdclN5shJ1pSSFhx7d3Uu+/0N6mY0+Oc1Z0dtk5SgkiOD9xLf7L9k= =AnhN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 02:29:50 UTC