- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:39:16 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Does "for the property in the scope where it appears" refer to sh:property or ex:someProperty in the example? It cannot be ex:someProperty because that isn't a rdf:Resource in the graph -- it's never a subject of a triple. All of the predicates in the sh:property [...] graph have sh:property as their subject. Now I'm fully confused about the whole sh:property graph and what the predicates in the graph mean. I should probably take a walk and think about it later. kc On 11/6/15 9:40 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 19:39:47 UTC