Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

I still don¡¯t know what you mean.

You believe that SHACL notion of instance is different from RDFS notion of
instance and, thus, the sentence "This can be read to mean "RDFS instance"
or "SHACL instance¡± has some meaning to you. I don¡¯t know why and how they
are different and I am not sure anyone else in the working group does, so
this sentence has no meaning to me.


I might understand better if you explained what input is provided to SHACL
engine in the first case (no validation error) and in the second case
(validation error).

Irene 



On 3/11/16, 5:22 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The definition of SHACL depends on "instannce".  This can be read to mean
>"RDFS instance" or "SHACL instance".  Under the former meaning the data
>graph
>does not validate against the shape.   Under the latter meaning the data
>graph
>does validate against the shape.
>
>peter
>
>
>On 03/11/2016 02:15 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> I don©öt 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 doesn©öt 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 22:35:35 UTC