Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

On 10/12/15 12:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> On 10/9/15 4:19 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Putting shapes in the graph will be awkward (at best) when the shape 
> is closed. It would require one to write an ignore statement that 
> includes every shape property used. 

I don't see how these topics are related. In practical terms, having 
shapes in the data graph only leads to unrelated triples IMHO, e.g.

ex:MyInstance
     sh:nodeShape ex:MyShape ;
     ex:someProperty 42 .

ex:MyShape
     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:constraint [
         a sh:ClosedShapeConstraint ;
         sh:ignoredProperties [ sh:nodeShape ] ;
     ] ;
     sh:property [
         sh:predicate ex:someProperty ;
         sh:datatype xsd:integer ;
     ] .

What different would the presence of the definition of ex:MyShape in the 
data make to the validation of ex:MyInstance?

More generally: does anyone have cases where having shapes in the 
dataGraph causes problems?

Thanks,
Holger



> That leads me to conclude, by the way, that the ignore function might 
> need to work on namesapaces, not just individual properties. And, of 
> course, that doesn't work for the base namespace.
>
> kc
>

Received on Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:37:31 UTC