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

Karen's example could be modeled with multiple shapes and property scopes
or a single shape with allSubjectsScope and multiple sh:property
definitions for dct:title & dct:subject which is more efficient

Another gap that sh:AllSubjectsScope came to fill is sh:scopeClass
rdfs:Resource that was available in very early versions of SHACL
In general this scope gives shacl core the flexibility to define complex
focus nodes using all subjects + filters that will not be easy otherwise
so I would be keen on keeping this in core

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT