Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution

I generally agree with this approach.

I would however use sh:scopeNode instead of sh:shapeNode.  I find that
scopeNode is more descriptive and also is closer to sh:scopeClass.

I would also not allow the complex linking method proposed by Dimitris.  If a
complex linkage is desired then it should be used for all scopes.

peter


On 10/14/2015 12:47 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> I propose to resolve issue 61 by stating that
> 
> Individual resources can be directly associated with a shape by linking from
> the shape to the resource using the property sh:shapeNode e.g.
> ex:myShape sh:shapeNode ex:myInstance
> 
> when ever such a triple exists, ex:myInstance should comply with the
> definition ex:myShape.
> 
> This approach excludes validation data from direct resource's data in cases of
> data merging and does not interfere with closed shapes where the current
> sh:nodeShape property needs to be manually excluded. 
> 
> As an alternative for people who want the reverse relation (resource to shape)
> is to use the existing sh:nodeShape property with the property linking to an
> intermediate resource that has two properties, a shape and a context e.g.
> 
> ex:myInstance sh:nodeShape [
>   sh:shape ex:myShape
>   sh:context ex:MyGraph
> ]
> 
> The advantages of this approach compared to the existing one (sh:nodeShape
> directly to a Shape) is the in cases of merging data from different sources,
> the validation context is kept
> 
> Dimitris
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 18:37:25 UTC