Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

OK, so these are constraints that authors don¹t wish to enforce on all users
(if they did, they could have just put them directly into their
vocabulary/schema graph), but they want to suggest them as a good practice
with the understanding that their suggestion can be ignored and there is no
expected tool enforcement to comply with the suggestion.

In this case, may be something like sh:authorRecommendedShapes?

Irene Polikoff


From:  Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date:  Friday, October 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM
To:  Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc:  public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86
Resent-From:  <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:55:44 +0000



On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/16/15 2:13 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>> sh:defaultShapesGraph sounds fine or maybe sh:recommendedShapesGraph. I
>> won't argue about the property name
> 
> Huge difference between default and recommended, and for both I would ask
> "says who?". Essentially, I can't imagine there being only one shapes graph
> for any vocabulary that is available outside of a very strict enterprise
> system.
> 
> I like the idea of shapes being discoverable in some way, but associating a
> shape with a vocabulary (rather than with instance data) goes against my
> preferred approach to vocabularies, which is to follow the principle of
> "minimum ontological commitment" in the vocab and allow many different uses of
> the vocab through application profiles.
> 
> This is particularly true of SKOS, which is purposely defined in such a way
> that the vocabulary contains few restrictions. cf:
> 
> Key choices in the design of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS)
> Thomas Baker , Sean Bechhofer, , , Antoine Isaac,Alistair Miles , Guus
> Schreiber, , Ed Summers http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001

what the authors of SKOS do here is *recommend* integrity constraints in
text e.g.
S14 A resource has no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language
tag.

at that time SHACL did not exist and there was no formal (machine readable)
way to describe all the SKOS constraints (some are described in OWL).
if e.g. SKOS was defined today the authors would probably want to describe
these constraints in SHACL.

To answer both Irene's comments.
I am for instance a schema designer publishing a vocabulary.  I recommend
that all instances of my vocabulary should comply with the shapes I define
and I link to them from my vocabulary.
People who use my vocabulary
- may follow the sh:????ShapesGraph link and validate their instance data
with my shapes 
- they can ignore my shapes completely and use their shapes (or no shapes at
all)
- or can use my shapes along with other shapes they define

I hope this makes the intention of this issue more clear.

Dimitris
 
> 
> 
> Table 2 gives the few (6) integrity conditions.
> 
> 
> kc
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
> 



-- 
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 <http://aligned-project.eu/>
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: http://aksw.org