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

rdfs:label and rdfs:comment are supposed to be about the resource itself,
which for SHACL is a constraint or shape.  However, the wording in SHACL says
to make them about the property, which is different from the constraint or shape.

For example, the SHACL example is

ex:InlinePropertyConstraintExampleShape
 a sh:Shape ;
 sh:property [
  sh:predicate ex:someProperty ;
  sh:minCount 1 ;
  sh:valueClass ex:SomeClass ;
  rdfs:label "some property" ;
  rdfs:comment "This is used for some purpose" ;
 ] .

where as it really should be

ex:InlinePropertyConstraintExampleShape
 a sh:Shape ;
 sh:property [
  sh:predicate ex:someProperty ;
  sh:minCount 1 ;
  sh:valueClass ex:SomeClass ;
  rdfs:label "ex:someProperty constraint in
ex:InlinePropertyConstraintExampleShape" ;
  rdfs:comment "This constrains values of ex:someProperty to belong to
ex:someClass" ;
 ] .

peter


On 11/06/2015 07:40 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Peter, this is a bit overly subtle for me. Can you say what exactly you see as
> violating RDFS? I'll tell you what I see and you can tell me how I'm wrong ;-)
> - when a property is itself a resource (X rdfs:label Y) then this has the RDFS
> meaning. What I see is that the resource that is named with rdfs:label in the
> case of SHACL is the blank node.
> 
> Now, what's the real problem? I assume it's not just wording.
> 
> Thanks,
> kc
> 
> On 11/5/15 3:57 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 6 November 2015 17:41:08 UTC