- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:32:49 -0700
- To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- CC: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 07/11/2014 03:33 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo 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 So, as a consumer of an RDF graph, I have to repeatedly ask whether the node that I am currently looking at meets a particular validity condition? Why shouldn't I be able to ask some overall validity conditions, conditioned on the sorts of nodes that I expect to be working on? peter
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 00:33:19 UTC