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

One problem with having all shapes initiate validation is that embedded shapes
would as well.

So in

ex:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ;
  sh:scopeClass ex:Person ;
  sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:dependent ;
                sh:valueShape [ a sh:Shape ;
                                sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:SSN ;
                                              sh:minCount 1 ] ] ] .

the scope of the embedded shape would be all nodes in the data graph,
resulting in validation reports for any node that does not have a value for

If all shapes are to have scopes then there are ways around this problem.  One
would be that shapes are not embedded in other shapes.  Instead there would be
a new kind of SHACL thing that is used when the current effect of embedding
shapes in shapes is desired.


On 05/14/2016 01:00 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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 node?
> 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.)
> kc
> 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.

Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 20:09:16 UTC