Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1

-----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