W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Wondering about an example of closed world validation

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:53:18 -0700
Message-ID: <53DBD40E.1070405@gmail.com>
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
CC: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
ShEx and Resource Shapes work on an RDF graph.  This does not mean that they 
can be used in combination with a reasoner, even an RDF reasoner.  SPARQL has 
entailment regimes, which specifies how SPARQL is supposed to work with reasoning.

Consider, for example, that there are infinitely many RDF consequences of a 
finite RDF graph.  How do I run ShEx and Resource Shapes on an infinite graph?

Consider, for example, that the OWL consequences of a finite RDF graph are 
generally not representable as an RDF graph.  How do I combine ShEx or 
Resource Shapes with OWL?

peter

PS:  The fixes to make ShEx and Resource Shapes to work with RDF and RDFS 
reasoning may not be all that hard, but I don't see any place that they have 
been stated.


On 07/31/2014 10:32 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>
>     Sure there are lots of ways of proceeding.  You may believe that
>     without-reasoning is better.  I may believe that with-reasoning is better.
>     However, ShEx and Resource Shapes appear to only allow without-reasoning,
>     which I think is completely broken.
>
>
> That is not true, ShEx and Resource Shapes work independently of reasoning. As
> I said in another thread, they can be used in combination with a reasoner.
>
> It is similar to SPARQL, you would not say that SPARQL only allows
> without-reasoning, it is just independent of reasoning, which means that you
> can do SPARQL with or without a reasoner.
>
> In fact, the lightweight nature of ShEx means that it can be used before and
> after reasoning: before reasoning to check if you have the triples that you
> expect and after, to check if the reasoner added the triples that you wanted.
>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 17:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC