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

Re: on ontologies/vocabulary

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:33:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a1yKryC52md5SSMgcgxdc39GT9Gq84qfy==wJdncYdvtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
I see your point,

I tried to remove any implication that this is automatically processed by
SHACL processors and make it a manual process
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/183f2350e4968a8ffa8cedbdc3268cbd905c0542

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is the revised wording, as far as I can tell:
>
> The same mechanism applies for ontologies and vocabularies, or simply
> schemas.
> A schema can suggest which shapes graphs should be used for validating data
> graphs that use the schema and SHACL processors MAY use this information.
> This
> suggestion is instantiated in the schema documents where every value for
> the
> property sh:shapesGraph denotes a suggested shapes graph. When the schema
> is
> identified by a schema IRI or a version IRI, this IRI SHOULD be the
> subject of
> these triples.
>
> The problem is still that SHACL does not have a notion of ontologies or
> vocabularies or schema for data graphs.  All that a SHACL processor gets
> is an
> RDF graph.  This is in contrast with shapes graphs, where owl:imports may
> be
> used to combine multiple shapes graphs.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 09/26/2016 07:45 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback Peter,
> >
> > I tried to reuse some OWL definitions to make this clear
> > <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/
> 9fe3186944e4ace455142935ab8bfa6a528cf740>.
> > I hope that by referencing OWL I didn't get into a new pitfall.
> >
> > Best,
> > Dimitris
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     "The data graph is expected to include all the ontology axioms
> related to
> >     the data and especially all the rdfs:subClassOf triples in order for
> SHACL
> >     to correctly identify class targets and validate Core SHACL
> constraints."
> >
> >     "The same mechanism applies for ontologies or vocabularies. The
> ontology or
> >     the vocabulary IRI can point to one or more graphs with the predicate
> >     sh:shapesGraph.  A SHACL processor MAY take this information into
> account to
> >     determine which shapes graph to use for validating a data graph that
> uses
> >     that ontology or vocabulary."
> >
> >     There is no defined notion that can be used to support "the ontology
> or
> >     vocabulary IRI".
> >
> >
> >     Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> >     Nuance Communications
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dimitris Kontokostas
> > Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
> Association
> > Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
> http://aligned-project.eu
> > Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> > Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
> >
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 16:34:43 UTC

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