Re: Properties v classes in validation

On 8/31/15 10:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> SHACL can certainly express all this, but maybe not with its Core
> Vocabulary. It's still SHACL though.

Note that this is included in Use Case #1 as a needed feature:

"3.1 UC1: Model validation

There is a general need to validate that the instance data matches the 
models that have been defined in RDFS or OWL. The primary validation 
requirement is to ensure that the appropriate information is given for 
each property (or class) in the model. As examples, one could require 
that each property must have a domain, or that classes must be 
explicitly stated in the instance data. Input to this case is the RDF 
representation of an RDFS (or OWL) ontology.

Summary: Requires the ability to check whether certain information is 
given/available for a property or class."

And also that this is the second requirement that has been brought 
forward from the library/archive community as a strong requirement that 
seems to be dismissed even though we included it in the use cases for 

Would making this an issue be the best way to move forward?


Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 05:52:41 UTC