- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:49:37 +1000
- To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tom Johnson <johnson.tom@gmail.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <56EB3481.6050207@topquadrant.com>
On 18/03/2016 1:49, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: > > The diff seems to indicate that functions still work only over > datasets, > although there is a TODO indicated. > > > I was waiting for Holger to wake up and clarify this but you are right SPARQL in general relies on datasets, e.g. in the GRAPH keyword. As soon as we talk about arbitrary SPARQL queries (e.g. in sh:sparql constraints or functions), datasets need to be in the picture. I maintain my position that we would be making our lives easier if we were simply talking about datasets, acknowledging that these datasets may only exist for the duration of a SHACL execution and contain the data graph (and the shapes graph) only. There is nothing conceptually difficult here, neither difficult to implement. Holger > Two "or dataset"s were also removed - > making the dataset optional is probably benign. > > As far as $shapesGraph goes, wording along the lines of "can be > used to access > the shapes graph" would seem to work, but would need some > explanation along > the lines of "If the shapes graph is a named graph in the same > dataset as the > data graph then it can be accessed using its name in the dataset. > Otherwise a > SHACL engine would need to provide an alternative way to access > the shapes graph." > > > tried to fix all your comments in a second commit here > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/a0a52a4472d807683abf7cf104079f35272f27df > > > this is a merge of both commits but also includes a few other > editorial fixes > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/editorial-dk > > apologies for sending commits but I am not yet comfortable to commit > to the main branch > > Best, > Dimitris > > > > > > peter > > > On 03/17/2016 02:04 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > > I removed all mentions of dataset in the text that imply that > validation works > > on RDF datasets > > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/fa2d99fd61a473d14eef9cee57c0db1c61e03684 > > > > One thing left to decide and close this issue is how to refer > to the > > '$shapesGraph" variable. right now we have variations of the > following in the spec > > "$shapesGraph ... a named graph IRI that contains the the shapes > graph" > > > > reading the sparql spec, named graphs imply an RDF dataset: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#namedGraphs > > > > even if we remove the "named" and refer to them as just graphs, > SPARQL uses > > the "GRAPH" keyword in the "Querying the Dataset" section > > https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#queryDataset > > > > so, do we still have an implicit assumption that validation > works on RDF datasets? > > > > Since we already have a resolution on $shapesGraph I see the > following options: > > a) we accept the edits as they are now in the spec and close > this issue > > b) we try to weaken further the connection and change > occurrences of "named > > graph" to "graph" > > c) since this is sparql-specific issue, we can add a disclaimer > in section 1.2 > > > > regarding how a SHACL validation engine wraps graphs to perform > validation, it > > can be an implementation detail > > > > Dimitris > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Holger Knublauch > <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com> > > <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>> wrote: > > > > Yes, you may have a point there - in cases like the default > graph we need > > to make sure that the system knows which subject to look for the > > sh:shapesGraph triples. This is probably just a URI parameter. > > > > (There are so many edit suggestions open right now that I am > looking > > forward to sharing the workload with a second editor, now > that Arthur has > > left; yes I have a day job too.) > > > > Holger > > > > > > On 8/03/2016 11:02, Tom Johnson wrote: > >> > An RDF dataset is a purely conceptual entity. Many APIs > implement > >> Dataset. Any Graph can be wrapped into a Dataset for > execution, even if > >> that Dataset is just virtual and only has a single graph in it. > >> > >> Reading the quoted text, this doesn't seem to hold. The > "data graph" > >> links to the "shapes graph" via a triple with its graph > name as the > >> subject. Many graphs do not have such a name (even those > that are within > >> Datasets; i.e. default graphs). > >> > >> Does SHACL provide a mechanism for connecting such a graph > to a shapes > >> graph? If not, how does wrapping the graph in a dataset > within the > >> implementation help a SHACL user make this connection? > >> > >> - Tom > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Holger Knublauch > <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com> > >> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com > <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>> wrote: > >> > >> An RDF dataset is a purely conceptual entity. Many APIs > implement > >> Dataset. Any Graph can be wrapped into a Dataset for > execution, even > >> if that Dataset is just virtual and only has a single > graph in it. > >> > >> Holger > >> > >> > >> > >> On 8/03/2016 2:45, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue > Tracker wrote: > >> > >> shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL > should not > >> assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset > [SHACL Spec] > >> > >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/130 > >> > >> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider > >> On product: SHACL Spec > >> > >> """4. Declaring the Shapes Graph > >> > >> A data graph MAY link to one or more shapes graphs > via the > >> property sh:shapesGraph. The subject of this > predicate must be > >> the graph resource, i.e. the name of the data graph > in the > >> dataset. The objects of this predicate must be IRI > nodes, > >> pointing at a named graph in the dataset. Tools may > use this > >> information to determine which shapes graph to use for > >> validation. If present, tools SHOULD transitively > follow any > >> links from the shapes graph via the predicate > owl:imports to > >> other graphs and use the resulting union graph as > parameter to > >> the validation process.""" > >> > >> This assumes that the data graph is in an RDF > dataset. SHACL > >> validation should work on data graphs that are not > in an RDF > >> dataset. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -Tom Johnson > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dimitris Kontokostas > > Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia > Association > > Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, > > http://http://aligned-project.eu <http://aligned-project.eu/> > > Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas > > Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT > > > > > > > -- > Dimitris Kontokostas > Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia > Association > Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, > http://http://aligned-project.eu <http://aligned-project.eu/> > Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas > Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT >
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 22:50:15 UTC