W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > May 2016

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:22:14 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5736A7F6.8030903@kcoyle.net>
Looking at this:

On 5/13/16 5:23 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 ;
>      ] .

There is 100% redundancy between sh:scopeProperty and the constraint. If 
I were to state what I want to do in terms of validation, it would come 
out like this:


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

because I am not using a scope at all. What this means is what is in the 
comment. A scope, logically, is a selection from the data graph, but 
this use case makes no such selection, and the constraint is sufficient.

Is there a use of scopeProperty that would not be redundant?

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 04:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC