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

Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:15:40 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D308AD44.95BAA%irene@topquadrant.com>
I donąt understand what you mean by

"validates against this shape under SHACL instance but not under RDFS
instance.˛

I am not able to parse the sentence.

What are you doing? Taking a shape described and the graph described and
running it against SHACL engine? What execution validates and what
execution doesnąt validate?



Irene 



On 3/11/16, 5:03 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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
>vocabulary.
>
>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.
>
>
>peter
>
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 22:16:17 UTC

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