Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

We need rdf:type to know if something is an instance of a class (note that I am saying simply 'instance' because I do not see the difference).

If {rdfs:label rdf:type rdf:Property} triple was provided to a SHACL engine, then the violation would be raised.

How else could it be known from the data graph that rdfs:label is a property? Or are you saying that SHACL engines should always include triples in RDFS vocabulary when they do their processing? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Using the RDFS definition of instance, rdfs:label is an instance of
> rdf:Property so it is in the scope of the shape and there is a violation.
> Using the SHACL definition of instance, rdfs:label is *not* an instance of
> rdf:Property so it is *not* in scope and there is *no* violation.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
>> On 03/11/2016 04:50 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Peter, I admit that I, too, am having trouble understanding this. (And so it
>> isn't all on Peter, if anyone else "gets it" maybe they could weight in.) The
>> SHACL document uses the term "instance" 78 times. I admit I only looked at the
>> first couple of dozen of those uses. For the most part they appear to me to
>> conform to the RDFS definition of "instance" - meaning an instance of class.
>> In some cases the term is used more colloquially, but those places in the
>> document don't seem to be definitional.
>> 
>> You say that it doesn't validate, but can you say what the difference is in
>> the two definitions? I still see it as having to do with the vocabulary
>> definition as opposed to the SHACL validation, but you didn't buy that when I
>> suggested it. If I were to use a typical OWL-based validation, rdfs:range
>> ex:label "range" would be flagged as inconsistent. The same would be true if I
>> would have
>>  ex:someSubject dct:type "text" .
>> (dct:type has a range of rdf-schema#Class)
>> 
>> If this isn't the issue, I would sure like to know what is.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> kc
>> 
>>> On 3/11/16 2:22 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> The definition of SHACL depends on "instance".  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 don¹t understand what you mean by
>>>> 
>>>> "validates against this shape under SHACL instance but not under RDFS
>>>> instance.²
>>>> 
>>>> 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 doesn¹t 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 Saturday, 12 March 2016 18:06:23 UTC