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

Re: Shapes - sub-classes / sub-properties

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:44:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJadXXLLvMDEapWdPwqzyY_JDMyuZaSrTq=vatxTbpbne9BhhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
> No, I have already seen the subshapes definition in ShEx primer [1]
>

OK, now I understand your question.

>
> in my example :
> <Agent> {a foaf:Agent, foaf:mbox xsd:string}
> <Person> {a foaf:Person, foaf:surname rdf:langString, foaf:firstName
> rdf:langString}
>
> my point was that (if we infer types on validation) having a foaf:Person
> without an mbox should not validate
> or a separate notation could be used to mark this intention. e.g.
>
> <Agent> {a `foaf:Agent`, foaf:mbox xsd:string}
> <Person> {a `foaf:Person`, foaf:surname rdf:langString, foaf:firstName
> rdf:langString}
>
> this is random syntax choice but  `foaf:Agent` (enclosed by ``) could
> mean: do type inferencing and apply to all sub classes of foaf:Agent, even
> if they are not explicitly stated in the graph.
> Depending on the implementation, someone could run an rdfs reasoner before
> validation or try to use SPARQL property paths directly.
>

OK, I understand your point now :) and yes, some extension like that could
be nice to have although I am not sure yet about the implications of it.

Best regards, Jose Labra



> Best,
> Dimitris
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer
>
>
>> Best regards, Jose Labra
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>



-- 
Saludos, Labra
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 21:44:50 UTC

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