Re: More wording

Ok, then how about

A graph that includes triples representing shapes ...

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> A graph of triples representing shapes is called a 'shapes graph'.
> 
> appears to rule out triples in the graph that are not part of shapes.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
>> On 04/18/2016 03:04 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> Come to think of this some more, I don't like
>> 
>>>> A set of shapes that defines validation rules for a data graph (?or a
>>>> portion of a data graph?) is called a 'shapes graph'.
>> 
>> It sounds like there could be a set of shapes defining validation rules and
>> then a set of shapes defining something else. Also, not sure about using the
>> term 'validation rules'.
>> 
>> Any reason we can't simply say:
>> 
>> A graph of triples representing shapes is called a 'shapes graph'.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com
>> <mailto:irene@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> The 'groups' language only works given the context. It wouldn't work in a
>>> more general sense. One would not say that a Person groups names - this
>>> doesn't make sense, but one may say that a Family groups family members or
>>> People.
>>> 
>>> In any case, Karen's proposed language works for me.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> OK, thanks, Peter. That truly wasn't clear, so I'll read further to see if
>>>> this definition is followed in the text.
>>>> 
>>>> But as an example, to me, the definition does not fit with the statement:
>>>> "SHACL groups descriptive information and constraints that apply to a given
>>>> data node into shapes. This document defines what it means for an RDF
>>>> graph, referred to as the "data graph", to conform to a graph containing
>>>> SHACL shapes, referred to as the "shapes graph"."
>>>> 
>>>> I have trouble with "groups ... constraints ... into shapes" if a shape is
>>>> an IRI/bnode. That is what made me think that shapes were intended to be
>>>> graphs, not things (graphs being groups of 1 or more triples). (You
>>>> wouldn't say: "groups names into Persons".) Perhaps:
>>>> 
>>>> "A shape is an instance of the class sh:Shape, either an IRI or a blank
>>>> node. The descriptive information and constraints that apply to a given
>>>> data node are defined as the properties of a shape. A set of shapes that
>>>> defines validation rules for a data graph (?or a portion of a data graph?)
>>>> is called a 'shapes graph'. A shapes graph consists of one or more shapes."
>>>> 
>>>> Closer?
>>>> 
>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/18/16 9:40 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> There may be some misunderstanding here.  Shapes in SHACL are IRIs or blank
>>>>> nodes and come from RDF graphs that are to be considered as shapes graphs.
>>>>> RDF graphs are generally not considered to be instances of classes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SHACL documents should be clear that SHACL shapes are IRIs or blank nodes
>>>>> and not graphs or sets of triples.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is some Turtle syntax for an RDF graph
>>>>> 
>>>>> @prefix ex: <http://example.com/> .
>>>>> @prefix ex: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> ex:s1 a sh:Shape ;
>>>>> sh:scopeClass ex:Person ;
>>>>> ex:property [ a sh:PropertyConstraint ;
>>>>>            ex:predicate ex:p1 ;
>>>>>               ex:valueShape ex:s2 ] ;
>>>>> ex:constraint [ a sh:PropertyConstraint ;
>>>>>                 ex:predicate ex:p2 ;
>>>>>        ex:valueShape [ a sh:Shape ;
>>>>>                  ex:constraint [ a sh:NodeConstraint ;
>>>>>                                        sh:class ex:Student ] ] ] .
>>>>> ex:s2 a sh:Shape ;
>>>>> sh:constraint [ a sh:NodeConstraint ;
>>>>>           sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ] .
>>>>> 
>>>>> When treated as a shapes graph, an RDF graph that results from this Turtle
>>>>> syntax has three shapes in it
>>>>> 1. http://example.com/s1
>>>>> 2. http://example.com/s2
>>>>> 3. the blank node that is allocated when matching
>>>>>     [ a sh:Shape ;
>>>>>    ex:constraint [ a sh:NodeConstraint ;
>>>>>              sh:class ex:Student ] ]
>>>>> 
>>>>> peter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04/18/2016 09:03 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>>> 2. Shapes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is: "Shapes are instances of the class sh:Shape and define a group of
>>>>>> constraints that a set of focus nodes can be validated against."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Suggest: "Shapes are graphs that are instances of the the class sh:Shape.
>>>>>> Shapes define one or more focus nodes in a data graph and constraints on
>>>>>> triples in those focus nodes. The triples in the focus nodes are validated
>>>>>> against the constraints in the shape."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also suggest that we define "shape" as "an RDF graph of type sh:Shape" and
>>>>>> not use "shape graph" but always use "shape" since "shape graph" is
>>>>>> redundant.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can make this change if we have agreement on it. If I don't hear back I may
>>>>>> make this definition an issue.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>>

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 00:58:53 UTC