Re: on ontologies/vocabulary

Currently as far as SHACL is concerned, the data graph is just a graph, there
is (currently) no process described in SHACL about constructing the data graph
from other graphs (as opposed to the situation for the shapes graph).

This appears to mean that as far as SHACL is concerned it is adequate to just
talk about sh:shapesGraph in the data graph.

peter


On 09/26/2016 09:33 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>     <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>
>     <mailto: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
>     <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 17:50:45 UTC