Re: Question on closed shapes

Holger,

This is fine as far as it goes. However, I am not sure what happens if
disjunction and negation are allowed.

-- Arthur

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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 the focus node as its
> subject and a predicate that 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 the focus node as 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
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 21:12:20 UTC