Re: using Shape Expressions to validate RDF graphs

On Jul 11, 2014 11:21 PM, "Solbrig, Harold R." <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>
wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I¹m puzzled ‹ why is this a pity? I¹d been under the impression that RDF,
> OWL, etc. already had the interpretation area pretty well covered.
>
> >> How can this be done with shape expressions?
>
> <SpouseShape> { ex:Spouse @<PersonShape> }
> <PersonShape> { rdf:type foaf:Person }

Terse, in a car and likely to get ill...
URI in object position is for a literal's datatype. You need "rdf:type
(foaf:person)"

> (not sure I¹ve got the grammar 100% right ‹ I¹m waiting for Eric to tell
> me what I did wrongŠ)
>
>
> >> How can (aligning this with an RDF or OWL assertion that the domain of
> >>ex:Spouse is foaf:Person) be done?
> Don¹t know.
>
> On 7/11/14, 3:31 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 07/11/2014 01:07 PM, Solbrig, Harold R. wrote:
> >> Another way to look at this is that the domain of shape expressions is
> >>RDF
> >> Graph.  Shape expressions have (almost) nothing to do with people,
> >>spouses,
> >> etc.
> >
> >It does appear that this is the case.  Pity.
> >
> >> They make assertions about triples ‹ the target of anything that
appears
> >> as the subject of a triple with a predicate ³spouse² will be the
> >>subject of
> >> another triple whose predicate is rdf:type and target is foaf:person.
> >
> >How can this be done with shape expressions?
> >
> >> While it would be useful if this were compatible with an OWL or other
> >> assertion about marriage being strictly being between humans (vs.
> >>humans and
> >> automobiles, for instance), ShEx is strictly about  the graph itself ‹
> >>not its
> >> interpretation.  It allows an external user to know what assumptions
> >>can be
> >> made about the contents ‹ that every subject with rdf:type foaf:person
> >>will
> >> always be the subject of an rdf:name triple as well.
> >
> >How can this be done with shape expressions?
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >peter
> >
>
>