- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 10:43:43 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Yes I would also be disappointed, but I believe this is already covered by the charter section 3 (Scope): "Hierarchies of shape definitions Permit any of a set of shapes to stand for a specified shape, e.g. to say that either a User shape or an Employee shape can be used in place of a Commentor shape." Holger On 8/9/14, 10:39 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I would be very disappointed if the RDF graph > > foo rdf:type bar . > bar rdfs:subClassOf bbb . > > satisfied the constraint > > bbb <= atleast 2 prop > > I thus think that inferencing has a lot to do with constraint checking. > > > peter > > > On 08/08/2014 05:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> >> On 8/8/14, 10:24 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>> >>> > 3. OPTIONAL A specification of how shape verification interacts with >>> > inference. >>> >>> I think this one feel off radar. Did you see any support for this? >>> >> >> In general, constraint checking should not *require* inferencing. >> However, I >> believe we should make sure that the topic of inferencing does not get >> prohibited by the charter. If the WG decides there is a chance to >> improve the >> semantic web stack, then it should be allowed to do so. For example I >> do like >> the idea in one of the ShEx papers to use structural information to >> produce >> new output (e.g. XML trees or other RDF triples). Another example is >> spin:rule, which is in our experience tremendously useful for defining >> mappings between ontologies, and to calculate the ex:area of a >> ex:Rectangle >> from ex:width and ex:height. Once we have a mechanism to attach >> SPARQL and >> templates to classes for constraint checking, we could use exactly >> the same >> mechanism to define such production rules - it becomes a rather trivial >> addition that would keep the solution consistent. All this could go >> into a >> separate, non-normative deliverable, but we should not exclude it. >> >> Holger >> >>
Received on Saturday, 9 August 2014 00:44:16 UTC