Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

On 14/05/2016 0:29, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> On 5/12/16 8:37 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have use cases for "all subjects" and "all objects" scopes?
>
> I'll have to dig through the email archive, but I recall that both 
> Arthur and I made a case for a "general" scope that included the 
> entire data graph without further refinement. That may be the origin 
> of this. (I don't see it in the UCR.)
>
> If your data graph is simple and flat, further scoping beyond "the 
> data graph" may not be possible. I don't, however, have an example in 
> hand, although I can imagine such scenarios. I will poke around some 
> more. The validation rules in that case would look like:
>
> In the data graph, every dct:subject must have an IRI for an object; 
> every dct:title must have a literal for an object.

Both of these examples seem to be property scopes, not all-object 
scopes, e.g. it could be

ex:MyShape
     a sh:Shape ;
     rdfs:comment "every dct:subject must have IRIs as objects" ;
     sh:scopeProperty dct:subject ;
     sh:property [
         sh:predicate dct:subject ;
         sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ;
     ] .

I have added a proposal to delete AllObject/AllSubjectScopes to

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-148:_Scope_declaration_simplification

Thanks,
Holger

>
> I don't think this is going to be a common case, but since Arthur also 
> brought it up, maybe Jim has something to say based on OSLC experience?
>
> kc
>

Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 00:24:15 UTC