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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:10:41 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a23zN2igR3UFp_-a=YBZoH2FcS6uJxDn=mE-Q0guUEGLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/16/2014 09:39 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    [...]
>>>
>>
>>  I think you are right and Shape checking is more low level than
>>> constraint
>>> checking in general. However, I also think there are plenty of practical
>>> applications where one would like to have some way to declare the shapes
>>> of
>>> RDF graphs in a easy and automatically verifiable way.
>>>
>>
>> Now we may be getting somewhere.
>>
>> What are these practical applications that you think require shape
>> checking?
>>
>
> I think I already mentioned them in the previous email. They could be
> summarized as publish and develop RDF based applications, and consume and
> integrate data between different linked data portals.
>
> For example, I have found Shape Expressions are very helpful to specify
> the contents of the RDF graphs that I want to publish, so I can tell my
> team of developers that they have to produce graphs with those
> shapes...also, I have found that data portals documented with Shape
> Expressions can help consumers to know which are the shapes of the RDF
> graphs behind them.
>

I don't see any drawback in term of readability for data consumers (there
might be some typos) e.g.
<Agent> {a foaf:Agent, foaf:mbox xsd:string}
<Person> {a foaf:Person, foaf:surname rdf:langString, foaf:firstName
rdf:langString}

compared to
<Agent> {a foaf:Agent, foaf:mbox xsd:string}
<Person> & <Agent> {a foaf:Person, foaf:surname rdf:langString,
foaf:firstName rdf:langString}

There can also be a special notation when we want to match subClasses e.g.
[foaf:Agent] or anything else that might fit in the relaxng syntax



>
> My canonical application for constraint checking is that I am writing a
>> program to consume RDF graphs, and I want to know that some information is
>> explicitly present in that RDF graph.  For example, I want to know that
>> each graduate student has a university explicitly given and that that
>> university is a research university.
>
>
> I think I have already done some shape expressions for that example or a
> similar one in another thread...it can be done with shape expressions as
> long as you are interested in the shape of the RDF graphs that you
> retrieve...
>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
>
>>
>>
>>  Best regards, Jose Labra
>>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Saludos, Labra
>



-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 09:11:37 UTC

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