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

Re: Shapes - sub-classes / sub-properties

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:27:41 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3uYM63Y_wGBbUGieJXT9xLMF-E7UfGg38sbHx9dVoE=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If I understand your question, I think what you are asking is out of the
> current ShEx scope but it can be handled by other tools or it could be
> added to ShEx processors also.
>
> I mean, ShEx just checks the shape of an RDF graph...
>

Since we are in the RDF world (and not the XML) it's a thin line to what
someone might expect from the following shape
<IssueShape> { a (:Issue) }

that graph can be the original graph or it can be the result of applying a
> reasoner to the original graph, in which case, it would check the original
> graph plus the inferred triples.
>
> An implementation of ShEx could do RDF Schema or OWL inference before
> applying ShEx so it could check the shape of the inferred graph instead of
> the original one. At this moment, I didn't incorporate it in Shexcala but
> it would not be difficult to add a flag to do it.
>

Asking a reasoner to do this for you is an easy choice but will probably
hide some validation errors (or create new inconsistencies) as well
so I would rather incorporate these semantics in the validation language
and the different implementation could choose how to evaluate them.

Best,
Dimitris


>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
> kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I noticed that at the moment you do not handle sub-classes &
>> sub-properties.
>> In a previous thread you mentioned that ShEx want to stand somewhere like
>> one step above syntactic validation so is this something out of the ShEx
>> scope?
>>
>> This can be easily achieved with SPARQL1.1 and property paths - when the
>> shape is evaluated in SPARQL (to be clear).
>> However, it needs the schema to get the relations.
>> Ideally this could be enabled by default in ShEx and a special directive
>> could point to the schema(s)
>> Or a special notation could mark if we want to match strictly <Issue> or
>> any subclass
>> such as: <CodingIssue> a owl:Class; rdfs:subClassOf <Issue> .
>>
>> Any thoughts, comments on this?
>>
>> Best,
>> Dimtiris
>>
>> --
>> Dimitris Kontokostas
>> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
>> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Saludos, Labra
>



-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 15:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC