Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 10/14/2015 17:47, 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
> ]
>
>
> I believe this reification takes it a bit too far (we could in theory
> apply this to every SHACL triple) and this info is already available via
> the quads of the named graphs.
>
> My proposal is: Resolve ISSUE-61 by replacing sh:nodeShape with
> sh:scopeNode which points from a sh:Shape to a node. Like sh:scope and
> sh:scopeClass, the sh:scopeNode triples are expected to be in the shapes
> graph.
>

Holger's simplification is perfectly fine by me


-- 
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