Re: Question on closed shapes

On 5/8/2015 5:06, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger,
>
> The text is ok but we are missing a precise spec for the triples that
> are matched by a shape.

I was hoping that my text clarifies this - if it is not precise enough 
then we need to rework it. Currently it states:

TEXTUAL DEFINITION
An|sh:Error|must be reported for each triple that has thefocus nodeas 
itssubjectand apredicatethat is not explicitly enumerated as 
a|sh:predicate|of the|sh:property|constraints at the surrounding shape. 
The properties|rdf:type|and|sh:nodeShape|are excluded from this 
constraint. The produced|sh:Error |must have thefocus nodeas 
its|sh:root|, and the corresponding values of the triple 
as|sh:subject|,|sh:predicate|and|sh:object|.

In other words, it will look at all triples that have the focus node as 
subject, except the rdf:type and sh:nodeShape triples. If any of those 
triples contains a predicate that has not been explicitly enumerated via 
sh:property/sh:predicate, then report an error for that triple.

In Example 16: A closed shape:

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
 a sh:Shape ;
 sh:constraint sh:ClosedShape ;
 sh:property [
  sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ;
 ] ;
 sh:property [
  sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ;
 ] .
 
ex:ClosedShapeExampleValidResource
 ex:exampleProperty1 ex:someValue .
 
ex:ClosedShapeExampleInvalidResource
 ex:exampleProperty2 ex:someValue ;
 ex:someOtherProperty 42 .


The last resource is invalid because it has a value for 
ex:someOtherProperty, which is not declared as a property.

I would like to get clarification from the ShEx people if this was the 
intention, or if this should be any more complicating.

Thanks
Holger


>
> -- Arthur
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> Holger, the text looks fine, but I think we need to come up with a term
>> other than "closed shape" -- it seems to me that is not going to be how most
>> users express this concept. That said, I'm struggling to come up with a
>> usable suggestion -- but I'll continue to think on it.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/15 4:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> FWIW I have added some support for closed shapes to my draft
>>>
>>>       http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape
>>>
>>> To those who suggested this feature: does this look about right?
>>>
>>> The design currently excludes rdf:type and sh:nodeShape. Does that make
>>> sense or must even those properties be explicitly enumerated via
>>> sh:property?
>>>
>>> (Other interpretations of "closed" shapes could be expressed via
>>> SPARQL's NOT EXISTS etc).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>