- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 08:43:07 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Karen, I see nothing invalid in your example. Are you referring to the value of sh:valueShape being a bnode? Yes, this is perfectly fine, just like such bnodes can show up in sh:or and sh:not. Holger On 20/05/2016 3:56, Karen Coyle wrote: > Thanks, Simon. Looking at the code in your message in January, I am > wondering if this, below, a variant using a bnode, is valid SHACL - > > ex:IssueShape a sh:Shape; > sh:scopeClass ex:Issue ; > sh:property [ > sh:predicate ex:submitter ; > sh:valueShape [ > a sh:Shape > sh:scopeClass ex:Person ; > sh:property [ > sh:predicate ex:username ; > sh:minCount 1 ; > sh:maxCount 1 ; > ] > ] > > The examples all show nodes with IRIs. If a bnode is also valid, then > we should add a short example showing that. If not, then the document > should explain that. > > kc > > On 5/19/16 7:37 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: >> IIRC, This is the proposal we voted for >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Dec/0044.html >> >> >> and there were some followup questions e.g. the following that was >> tagged by mistake under a different issue >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0015.html >> >> here it is clarified that scoping and filters are ignored when the >> shapes are referenced from another shape >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> Thanks. Can you describe or point me to the resolution? - kc >> >> On 5/18/16 10:59 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: >> >> Karen, >> >> This is an issue I raised sometime ago and we have a resolution >> with the >> current design >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/49 >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Holger Knublauch >> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com> >> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>> >> wrote: >> >> Not all shapes need to have a scope IMHO. It's the same >> situation as >> in ontology development. Not every class that is published >> in an >> ontology is used by everyone, and thus does not need to >> have >> instances. Sometimes shapes will be defined in one file so >> that they >> can be extended with a scope in another file, for one >> specific >> application. >> >> I don't see a problem with our current design, and >> sh:scopeProperty >> being sometimes a bit redundant. As I said elsewhere, >> there are >> cases where sh:scopeProperty and sh:predicate are in fact >> different. >> I would not favor introducing a new concept for nested >> shapes. >> >> Holger >> >> >> >> >> On 19/05/2016 2:22, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/15/16 10:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> +1. I can't think of a good name for these, but it >> seems to me >> that we have: >> >> SHACL "file" (data set, whatever) - a set of shapes and >> constraints >> shape - defines a scope, optional filters, and related >> constraints >> constraint - the node that defines a set constraints >> that will >> be applied to the focus node >> [X] - a set of constraints >> >> [X] can be a blank node, as it is in many shapes, or it >> may have >> an IRI, which is what was formerly illustrated in >> Example 1. >> (This assumes that the only difference between them is >> IRI-v-bNode.) >> >> The "embedded" vs. "referenced" doesn't make sense in >> an RDF >> context, to my mind. It has instead to do with >> whether the >> constraints are local-only (bnode) or shareable (IRI). >> >> kc >> p.s. This doesn't take into account Holger's latest >> proposal to >> place shapes sub constraints, but I don't think that >> makes a >> difference here >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 22:43:39 UTC