Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

On 3/11/16 11:43 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Consider the following shape (using obvious prefix declarations)
> sh:propertyShape a sh:Shape ;
>   sh:scopeClass rdf:Property ;
>   sh:property [ sh:predicate rdfs:label ;
>                 sh:minCount 1 ] .
> The data graph (using obvious prefix declarations)
> rdfs:range ex:label "range" .
> validates against this shape under SHACL instance but not under RDFS instance.

Isn't this a problem with every vocabulary and not just RDFS? If the 
rules of the vocabulary (such as domain and range) are not encoded as 
such in SHACL then the SHACL result can be "in violation" of the 
vocabulary definition.

Now, if that is the case then I understand that violating the foundation 
vocabulary of RDF/RDFS may be more grave than violating a user-developed 
vocabulary, and in some cases doing the latter may indeed be the 
intention of the SHACL definition. So do we want to build into SHACL 
that it must follow RDF/RDFS property and class definitions? And how 
feasible is that?


Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 21:01:53 UTC