Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]

I had long thought about using new properties such as sh:label and 
sh:definition instead. I decided to prefer rdfs:label and rdfs:comment, 
because these properties are most likely already used as annotations on 
the shapes, classes and other resources in SHACL files. People will get 
confused which property to use in which context, adding just another 
unnecessary complication in the learning curve.

Since a property constraint resource describes the use of a property in 
the context of a shape scope, I see no reason why using rdfs:label would 
violate the official spec.

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-112 - no change required.

Holger


On 11/6/2015 7:55, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/112
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> >From http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/:
>
> Property constraints may have an rdfs:label to provide a human-readable label for the property in the scope where it appears.
>
> >From http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
>
> rdfs:label is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used to provide a human-readable version of a resource's name.  A triple of the form: R rdfs:label L . states that L is a human readable label for R.
>
> The SHACL use does not abide by the RDFS meaning.  SHACL should not use RDFS properties in ways that violate their RDFS meaning.
>
> Similarly for rdfs:comment.
>
>
> PROPOSAL:  Remove the non-conforming wording for and uses of rdfs:label and rdfs:commment.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 23:58:08 UTC