- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:42:26 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 5/14/16 1:08 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 > ex:SSN. I thought that filter shapes would be used if further refinement of the scope is needed. This appears to be using a shape for that purpose (and I don't recall this being mentioned before). Even with a defined scope it isn't clear to me what the scope in the embedded shape would act on as its initial input, since the spec says that a shapes graph is compared to a data graph, but the result of scoping \= a new data graph. ? Anyway, is embedding shapes allowed? If so, what are the rules for how that is implemented? kc > > 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. > > peter > > > 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" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If a shape has no scopes then >>>> no validation is initiated by that shape. >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 15 May 2016 14:42:52 UTC