Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec]

Here is a proposal about the link in question (instead of the reverse link).

PROPOSED: The SHACL spec states that there is no need for a link from an
ontology to SHACL shapes and does not define such a link.  The SHACL spec
further states that there is nothing in SHACL to prevent an ontology
document from including SHACL shapes or importing or linking to a SHACL
shapes document but that such inclusion or importation or link has no
special effect in SHACL.  The SHACL spec mentions that SHACL shapes are
often best developed in conjunction with a set of ontology axioms and that
tools for the development of SHACL shapes may want to provide mechanisms for
viewing axioms from a separate ontology.


peter




On 10/01/2015 12:04 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Now that it is more clear I would like to propose my resolution of issue-86.
> 
> I suggest the spec mentions something in the lines of the following sentence
> ontology or vocabulary designers that want to publish SHACL constraints along
> with their schemas are encouraged (or SHOULD) either define the associated
> shapes in the same document with the schema or link to them through the
> sh:shapesGraph property.
> 
> This is independent of Peter's suggestion and if the WG thinks that Peter's
> suggestion should also exist in the spec I would vote +1 on this as well.
> 
> Dimitris
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
> <mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>     <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         I do not see that SHACL needs any connection between a shapes graph and an
>         ontology definition.
> 
>         For purposes of designing a collection of shapes, having access to an
>         ontology
>         that provides axioms about the classes in a collection of shapes is handy.
>         However, validating SHACL shapes or documents against a data graph or
>         node in
>         a data graph does not need any link going from the shapes graph to an
>         ontology
>         graph.   A SHACL validation engine does need to have access to
>         ontology axioms
>         to determine whether a node in the data graph is a SHACL instance of a
>         class,
>         but this is best done by including a graph with the required ontology
>         axioms
>         into the data graph.
> 
>         I therefore vote 0 for a) and -1 for the other options.
> 
> 
>     Peter,
> 
>     I also do not think that shacl needs a link to an ontology/vocabulary.
>     The issue subject is indeed not clear but the intent was about the reverse
>     relation: ontology/vocabulary to shacl
> 
>     e.g. skos could define their additional constraints [1] in shacl and my
>     issue was about how could e.g. skos publish these constraints
> 
>     Dimitris
> 
>     [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L2422 
>      
> 
> 
>         I would vote +1 for a proposal like:
> 
>         PROPOSED: The SHACL spec states that there is no need for a link from
>         a SHACL
>         shapes graph to an ontology graph and does not define such a link. 
>         The SHACL
>         spec further states that there is nothing in SHACL to prevent a SHACL
>         shapes
>         graph from including ontology axioms or importing ontology axioms, but
>         that
>         such inclusion or importation has no effect on determining whether a
>         node in a
>         data graph is a SHACL instance of a class.  The SHACL spec states that
>         ontology axioms that affect SHACL are either part of the data graph or
>         included from the data graph.   The SHACL spec mentions that SHACL shape
>         graphs are often best developed in conjunction with a set of ontology
>         axioms
>         and that tools for the development of SHACL shapes may want to provide
>         mechanisms for viewing axioms from a separate ontology.
> 
>         This proposal clearly makes the required distinction between what is
>         required
>         for SHACL validation and thus should be part of the SHACL language,
>         and what
>         is useful for SHACL development and thus should not be part of the
>         SHACL language.
> 
> 
>         peter
> 
> 
>         On 09/10/2015 01:09 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>         > shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or
>         vocabularies [SHACL Spec]
>         >
>         > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/86
>         >
>         > Raised by: Dimitris Kontokostas
>         > On product: SHACL Spec
>         >
>         > Related to ISSUE-44, this is issue is about ways to associate an
>         ontology or vocabulary to a set of shapes.
>         >
>         > Possible ways to resolve it
>         > a) SHACL spec says nothing about associating ontologies/vocabularies
>         with shapes
>         > b) SHACL spec suggests the use of owl:imports
>         > c) SHACL spec suggests the use of sh:shapesGraph
>         > d) SHACL spec suggests shapes are defined in the same file with the
>         ontology/vocabulary
>         > e) SHACL spec suggests a combination of (d) with (b) or (c)
>         >
>         >
>         >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Dimitris Kontokostas
>     Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
>     Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu,
>     http://rdfunit.aksw.org
>     Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>     Research Group: http://aksw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu,
> http://rdfunit.aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>

Received on Thursday, 15 October 2015 19:37:44 UTC