Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution

There is now a good place to indicate your preference:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-61:_Direction_of_sh:nodeShape

I think in the interest of making progress it would be great if anyone 
who has an opinion about any of the open tickets indicates their votes 
there.

Thanks,
Holger



On 10/30/15 3:21 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> I generally agree with this proposal. I am in favour of using
> sh:scopeNode as the semantically inverse property of sh:nodeShape.
>
> The way this would work in the Linked Data use case for GET/PUT/POST
> is that the application would do some preprocessing. Let the standard
> shape be S and let the HTTP payload be the data graph D. The
> application (client or server) would split D into D' and X where X
> contains the sh:scopeNode triple (or triples). Let S' be the graph
> merge of S and X. The application calls a SHACL processor to validated
> the data graph D' using the shapes graph S'.
>
> -- Arthur
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>

Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 19:39:27 UTC