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