- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:50:14 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 09/26/2016 12:12 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > 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. That works. >> >> "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 The first quote above says that the entailment directive/regime is in the shapes graph. The second quote says that if an unsupported entailment directive/regime is in the data graph then something is wrong. This doesn't make sense. > Holger Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 15:50:46 UTC