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

Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:51:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAApBiOk8SvCsKEF1FR0-KwTR3kRy84LCuhuxGDqLEZFVJgw01A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
Cc: Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com>, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
+1

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Michel Dumontier
<michel.dumontier@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case it wasn't clear, i meant that I don't support direct annotation of a
> class. the target of a shape should be referenced by the shape.
>
> m
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also support this approach as a direct association of a shape to a class.
> Indirection comes when we try to guess it from other triples associated with
> the shape resource.
>
> Best,
> Dimitris
>
> On Apr 29, 2015 03:33, "Michel Dumontier" <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> I support this proposal. I believe it is important that shapes and classes
>> be considered different, and that it is user-defined shapes that may refer
>> to class expressions or other shapes.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> Michel Dumontier, PhD
>> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
>> Stanford University
>> http://dumontierlab.com
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your sh:classScope looks exactly like the sh:classShape used in my
>>> previous email, only in the inverse direction. I don't see how this avoids
>>> mingling between classes and shapes - it just adds a level of indirection.
>>> Selection still happens by rdf:types and rdfs:subClassOf inheritance still
>>> remains meaningful. It's just another syntax for the same concepts.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/29/2015 10:51, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> I propose that there be no mingling of RDFS classes and shapes,
>>>> constraints,
>>>> or anything else in the SHACL specification.  This proposal, I believe,
>>>> is
>>>> consonant with Stardog ICV, with Shape Expressions, and with Resource
>>>> Shapes.  Selection of which nodes to verify would be done using
>>>> mechanisms
>>>> different from those used in RDFS, although some selection would
>>>> interact
>>>> with RDFS classes and properties.  One specific set of mechanisms that
>>>> work
>>>> this way can be found in
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-sparql where there are
>>>> several kinds of scoping links that say which nodes are to be checked
>>>> against a shape.
>>>>
>>>> One of these kinds of scoping links links to a class, and requires all
>>>> instances of the class be checked against a shape.  So for checking that
>>>> all
>>>> people's parents are people one could* say:
>>>>
>>>> [ sh:classScope ex:Person ;
>>>>    sh:shape [ sh:predicate ex:parent ;
>>>>               sh:valueType ex:Person ] ]
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * This is written in the representationally relaxed variant.
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>>>
>>>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQCr9AAoJECjN6+QThfjz3vcIANEl+Zjrp6eOri6cA66e5Yk5
>>>> gvI/N3/1bf4UxNJyLmHPp8diqHKo97ZcRD4lZw/Haf6hsGoTEpThlNBKaCXTwpv0
>>>> QZJzJHcyR+9thYmSbFElUVVu9cWH2sHakHANCbyXzmVbuemfGDfVdu3ud3V/QlP1
>>>> Br5k+PSIPRImVWXGszC9/32HmP/l41Wu6nEcExsz3FjrR1xAhGHeavdONifjhBaU
>>>> pLBnp4AkNkkHzhmXPLKevgokmx3vZ/WztTfc2YUhZNvueY4utaM4RTKzGkmT8uSe
>>>> CzK6p1Svr9jeJ6ecEqqCxw3NvhYlkZ94+iI4wQtxMIGhkKmyjSJlQk2yoVokBVM=
>>>> =txRC
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 17:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:23 UTC