- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:02:08 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 9/3/15 3:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> 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,
rdf:Property
a sh:ShapeClass ;
sh:property [
# Each property must have a domain
sh:predicate rdfs:domain ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] .
> or that classes must be explicitly stated in the instance data.
ex:MyShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:scope [ a sh:AllSubjectsScope ] ;
sh:property [
# all "instances" must have a type
sh:predicate rdf:type ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
] .
> 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."
These examples can already be covered. What else is missing?
>
> 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 SHACL.
Which one was the other?
Besides, nothing gets "dismissed" only because it is not covered by the
core vocabulary.
HTH
Holger
>
> Would making this an issue be the best way to move forward?
>
> kc
>
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 06:02:41 UTC