- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:51:24 -0400
- 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