Re: Properties v classes in validation

On 9/2/15 11:02 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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?

Cardinality for instances of a class is one. Dependencies (if instance 
of classA then must/must not also exist instance of classB) See the DC 
requirements here:

http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements

And we have use cases that have further information which we will 
develop as test cases for SHACL.

>
>>
>> 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?

The issue brought up by Phil Archer:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0007.html

>
> Besides, nothing gets "dismissed" only because it is not covered by the
> core vocabulary.

Holger, what is and what isn't in the core is extremely important. We 
have said that the core needs to cover the most common requirements.

kc

>
> HTH
> Holger
>
>
>>
>> Would making this an issue be the best way to move forward?
>>
>> kc
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 14:58:06 UTC