Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 10/10/15 2:26 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris,
> I think you need to spell out the effects to make this proposal stand.
>
> My understanding from yesterday's discussion is that using (2) leads to
> the same results as (1), once owl:imports is processed, while using (3)
> would allow a processor to import the ontology, presumably linked from the
> data graph using owl:imports, into the data graph without necessarily
> pulling in the shapes as well.
>
>
> Another option that also keeps the shapes out of the data graph is
>
>     SKOS-Shapes owl:imports SKOS .
>     MyData sh:shapesGraph SKOS-Shapes .
>     MyData owl:imports SKOS .
>

This is different, my issue was only about linking a shapes graph from an
ontology not the other way around.


>
> Also, some people will put everything into one file (option 1) so our
> tools need to live with that situation anyway. There is no harm in having
> the shapes as data. For some use cases, shapes *are* data.
>

My proposed resolution supports this case. I repeat and extend my proposal
to cover Arnaud's and Peter's commets


For ontology / vocabulary (schema) designers who want to associate shapes
with their schema definitions the spec will suggest the following 3 means
of association:
1) the shapes will be written in the same document with the schema
2) the shapes graph will be imported using owl:imports
3) the shapes graph will be linked from the schema IRI with the property
sh:schemaShapes. SHACL engines MAY use this link to load additional shapes
in a validation

It is a common pattern to keep schemas along with the data in the data
graph to facilitate data querying.
In these cases, options (1) and (2) will result in having the shapes in the
data graph. If the user wants to perform a validation with a separate
shapes graph, the shapes and the schema will have to be duplicated into the
shapes graph.
Option (3) keeps the shapes and the schema definition separate and gives
the option to the user to load them on demand.



>
>
> Holger
>
>
>
> Is that right?
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Software Group
>
>
> Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote on 10/09/2015 12:37:39 AM:
>
> > From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> > To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> > Date: 10/09/2015 12:39 AM
> > Subject: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86
> >
> > A proposal to resolve Issue 86 is the following
> >
> > For ontology / vocabulary designers who want to associate shapes
> > with their ontology definition the spec will suggest the following 3
> > means of association:
> > 1) the shapes will be written in the same document with the ontology
> > 2) the shapes graph will be imported using owl:imports
> > 3) the shapes graph will be linked from the ontology / vocabulary
> > IRI with the property sh:schemaShapes
> > The spec will additionally mention the effects of options (1)/(2)
> > compared to (3).
> >
> > Best,
> > Dimtiris
> >
> > --
> > Dimitris Kontokostas
> > Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
> Association
> > Events:  <http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/California2015>
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/California2015(Nov 5th)
> > Projects: <http://dbpedia.org/>http://dbpedia.org,
> http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://
> > http://aligned-project.eu
> > Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> > Research Group: <http://aksw.org/>http://aksw.org
>
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Events: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/California2015 (Nov 5th)
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: http://aksw.org