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

That may be what one interprets from the current spec, but it doesn't 
preclude us from considering the logic that I proposed, which is that a 
shape's scope is the data graph unless further scoping is defined. 
Obviously, this makes more sense to me than requiring a scope. Also, we 
do not at this point have a scope defined that would represent the 
entire data graph. How would I work with a set of triples with no 
defined classes and of which I could not know a priori the identity of a 

I know this seems outlandish, but I'm thinking of the possibility of 
operating on received data that you need to investigate to see what 
state it is in. One role for validation is to analyze data sources that 
don't present with sufficient rigor or with pre-defined documentation. 
Some validation programs are going to have to work with unknowns and 
with bad data. This is one of the functions of validation in the 
massively shared cultural heritage community. One needs to be able to 
get some information out of data graphs that don't conform to 
expectations. It seems to me that being able to do some checking on the 
data graph as a whole could have value. (But I'll also check with my 
peeps about this and get back to this list.)


On 5/14/16 12:23 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Yes, this was my interpretation as well, but I wanted to confirm.
> Irene
> On 5/14/16, 3:01 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
> wrote:
>> If a shape has no scopes then
>> no validation is initiated by that shape.

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 20:00:37 UTC