- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:22:33 +0300
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a08cE7s0+=vg-bZgFqi2QJQUn9Ga3nWQ+gMta1hzPUFCw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > On 9/11/2015 16:10, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Holger Knublauch < > <holger@topquadrant.com>holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > >> One design pattern that will emerge is to have 3 graphs: >> >> - dataGraph owl:imports ontology ; sh:shapesGraph shapesGraph . >> - shapesGraph owl:imports ontology >> >> rdfs:subClassOf triples are needed to be present both in the shapes graph >> and the data graph in several places, e.g. to validate sh:valueClass >> constraints. Yet the shapes also need the ontology for the sh:scopeClass >> triples. >> > > I agree that the ontology should exist along with the data but not > necessarily together with the shapes. We don't need to perform any > transitive closure of rdfs:subClassOf in the scope, or are we? > > > Many shapes will want to use sh:scopeClass, and for that to work best > (e.g. in editing tools) it is good to have the classes handy. Shapes will > also reference properties from other namespaces, and it will be a good > practice to owl:import those. I am not aware of the need for transitive > class traversal in the shapes graph. > We agree then. I meant not required for the actual validation Dimitris -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu, http://rdfunit.aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 07:23:25 UTC