Re: using Shape Expressions to validate RDF graphs

I noticed that the declaration of spouse should be optional (so people not
married have also shape of Person :). The updated example is at:
http://goo.gl/9Zqe8a

Best regards, Jose Labra


On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have updated the implementation to check the person/spouse example.
>
> You can play with the example here: http://goo.gl/gJWCjJ
>
> Notice that I added two flags to the validator system: withIncoming (to
> support reverse arcs) and open shapes. By default, shexcala works with
> closed shapes...although I will probably change that to have open shapes by
> default...
>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <
> jelabra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>  With regards to the spouse/person, I think what you want to describe
>>>> can be
>>>> done as:
>>>>
>>>> <PersonShape> { :a (:Person), :spouse @<SpouseShape>? }
>>>> <SpouseShape> { :a (:Person), ^:spouse @<PersonShape> }
>>>>
>>>> The last declaration contains a reverse arc, which means that a
>>>> SpouseShape is
>>>> the object of an arc :spouse with shape PersonShape.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I still don't see how this tells me whether all the nodes that have an
>>> rdf:type link to :Person have all their spouses have rdf:type links to
>>> :Person.
>>>
>>
>> What it tells you is that if you select a node in the graph and you want
>> to check if it has the Shape of a Person, you can have a system (a Shape
>> Expression validator) that will check if it has the properties rdf:type
>> with value :Person and :spouse with a value that also has rdf:type :Person.
>>
>> I mean...the Shape Expression validator is just looking at the shape of
>> the RDF graph...that's why it is working in a more syntactic level than
>> RDFS, OWL, etc...and that's why I think both are complementary
>> technologies.
>>
>> Best regards, Jose Labra
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Saludos, Labra
>



-- 
Saludos, Labra