Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

>
>
> My proposed resolution supports this case. I repeat and extend my proposal
> to cover Arnaud's and Peter's commets
>
>
> For ontology / vocabulary (schema) designers who want to associate shapes
> with their schema definitions the spec will suggest the following 3 means
> of association:
> 1) the shapes will be written in the same document with the schema
> 2) the shapes graph will be imported using owl:imports
> 3) the shapes graph will be linked from the schema IRI with the property
> sh:schemaShapes. SHACL engines MAY use this link to load additional shapes
> in a validation
>
> It is a common pattern to keep schemas along with the data in the data
> graph to facilitate data querying.
> In these cases, options (1) and (2) will result in having the shapes in
> the data graph. If the user wants to perform a validation with a separate
> shapes graph, the shapes and the schema will have to be duplicated into the
> shapes graph.
> Option (3) keeps the shapes and the schema definition separate and gives
> the option to the user to load them on demand.
>

Another take to simplify the proposal and avoid objections:

To associate an ontology or vocabulary (schema) to a set of shapes
definitions the schema designer MAY link the schema IRI to the shapes graph
IRI with the property sh:chemaShapes. SHACL engines MAY use this link to
load additional shapes in a validation setting.

Dimitris

-- 
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