Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL

It appears the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range were added to the Turtle document on
20 April 2016.  The Turtle document was not a part of the SHACL document as of
the last public working draft of 14 August 2016.

There was some discussion of domains and ranges in the file back in November
2015 but I cannot find any resolution on this point   There was a version of
the document created by Arthur Ryman as a response to ACTION-31, but this
version appears to have disappeared.

The only relevant resolution I can find is
2015/11/19 - Close ISSUE-87 with two files: shacl-vocab.ttl and
shacl.shacl.ttl as per Arthur Ryman's proposal
http://www.w3.org/mid/CAApBiOn9eBvt99Eyu%253DjGUL9FxGHB%252B4r6%253DmPrUrwzCAHjmsQpSA%2540mail.gmail.com
I don't see any reference to rdfs:domain or rdfs:range there.


So where did the working group decide to include rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
in the document?


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 12/14/2016 02:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> The working group had already discussed this as part of ISSUE-87 in 2015 and
> decided to include rdfs:range and rdfs:domain statements as suggested by
> Arthur Ryman. Among others it simplifies interaction with editing tools that
> populate input forms based on ranges and domains. According to your logic we
> also couldn't include rdfs:subClassOf triples, because someone may expect us
> to do RDFS inferencing.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 15/12/2016 8:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> The problem is that readers may be misinformed into believing that this domain
>> and range information actually relates to anything that happens in SHACL.
>>
>> The subclass information might have some relationship to what happens in
>> SHACL, so there might be some utility to include it in an official SHACL
>> document.  Since the domain and range information doesn't, including it in an
>> official SHACL document seems to me to only be misleading.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2016 01:34 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>>> Something like:
>>>
>>> sh:property rdfs:range sh:PropertyConstraint
>>>
>>> is simply a declaration.
>>>
>>> It does not require that inferencing must happen. Just like other published
>>> vocabularies (e.g., SKOS) do not require their users to perform inferencing.
>>>
>>> Whether the reader of the document chooses to only be informed by these
>>> statements or do inferencing is the readers choice not the publisher.
>>>
>>> So, I don’t really see what problem the domain and range statements in the
>>> SHACL vocabulary would create.
>>>
>>> Irene
>>>
>>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> However then the document has to reflect the actual
>>>> situation with respect to the SHACL vocabulary.  This does not appear to be
>>>> the case.  There are lots of occurrences of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range in the
>>>> document.  As SHACL doesn't do RDFS reasoning these are only creating false
>>>> impressions.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 23:35:11 UTC