Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

On 03/11/2016 01:01 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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?
> kc

This is only a real problem because SHACL uses "instance" in its
specification, this term is also used centrally in RDFS, and SHACL uses RDFS

The question then is how to read "instance" in SHACL documentation, i.e., how
to prevent readers of the SHACL documentation from seeing "RDFS instance"
where "SHACL instance" is meant.


Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 22:04:25 UTC