W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:57:51 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DDB30F.70705@gmail.com>
On 03/06/2016 08:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
[...]

> On 7/03/2016 6:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

>> 12. Entailment
>>
>> RDF does not define the notion of the IRI of a graph.  Therefore if SHACL is
>> going to use this notion it must define it on its own.
> 
> Isn't this already clear? When we talk about a shapes graph, then this refers
> to the role of a graph as validation input. We even have a variable
> $shapesGraph for it. From this, a validation engine can find the IRI node in
> the graph (possibly a owl:Ontology instance).
> 
> Holger

Here are some shapes graphs (well, modulo expansion of curies with well-known
prefixes):

S1:
<http://example.com/S2> sh:entailment <http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF> .

S2:
<http://example.com/S2> sh:entailment <http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF> .
<http://example.com/S2> rdf:type owl:Ontology .

S3:
<http://example.com/S3> sh:entailment <http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF> .
<http://example.com/S4> rdf:type owl:Ontology .

S4:
<http://example.com/S4> sh:entailment <http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF> .
<http://example.com/S4> rdf:type owl:Ontology .
<http://example.com/S2> rdf:type owl:Ontology .

What is the IRI of each of these graphs?

peter
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 16:58:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:30 UTC