W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: on entailment

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:12:55 +1000
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <9121fb6d-3269-4b22-8a31-4ce2fced095e@topquadrant.com>


On 26/09/2016 16:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> "the property sh:entailment can be used to instruct a SHACL Full processor
> to ensure that a given entailment is activated on the data graph."
>
> Can SHACL Core processors "activate" entailment?

I have removed the term "Full" from this section.

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/ebeb18f61eea4bf3164ee183ca166a70a2f5cfce

Indeed there could be implementations of less than SHACL Full that still 
provide entailment support. However, the sh:entailment property lies 
outside of SHACL, and this is clarified by the position of this 
paragraph in the Part II of the spec.

>
>
> "In addition to shape definitions, the shapes graph may contain additional
> information for the SHACL processor such as entailment directives."
>
> "If an entailment regime is provided in the data graph which is not
> supported by the SHACL Full processor, the validation must produce a
> failure."
>
> Where can the entailment directive/regime be?

I assume you mean what the subject of sh:entailment is? We have left 
this undefined, i.e. it can be attached to any subject. A typical design 
pattern would be to place it into an owl:Ontology node but since the 
shapes graph may contain any number of them (owl:imported) we didn't 
want to open yet another topic that may lead to controversial discussions.

Holger


>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 07:13:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC