- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:36:57 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
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