- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:00:42 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 5/13/16 5:23 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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, Yes, and the examples that Arthur and I talked about were mostly property scopes. I don't recall any that were object or subject scopes. Then again, that was a while ago so if anyone else remembers this, please weigh in. kc 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 >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 02:01:08 UTC