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