Re: Extent of SHACL?

Thanks Frans. Playground does sound like the place I need to go.

Applications for documentation etc. makes a lot of sense.

Glad you see the same SHACL vs. OWL = Spurious thing that prompted me to
post. I imagine our esteemed colleagues in Manchester have some
(incomprehensible to me) analysis in the pipeline.

The Jena thing I mentioned, all due respect to Bristol, was rather
haphazard, mostly syntax sanity-checking. But was very useful. Something
similar properly spec'd out, little bit of semantics, should be much more
so. ...Playground.

Aside, this is the kind of thing - quoting danbri & libby from The Book On
It (yet to read) [1] : "The contents of this book are nearly 20 years too
late, but better now than never.".
My own experience over the past few years has been, dichotomous,
trichotomous, tetratomous, pentamonous (?) . You have SQL folks who worry
about not having constraints, "how can you work with such sloppiness?"
(30%), The Young Turks: JSON API developers that despite using URLs all day
can't see the wood for the trees (70%). Logicians (5%). Stay-at-home time
travellers (if only the Web had started differently), (2%). Finally the
people on this list (1^-15% or 100%, YMMV).
But that SQL brigade is the most influential, predicated on being reliable.
Win them over, rather a big job done. Seems silly, but locally closed
worlds in the cloud...

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://book.validatingrdf.com/bookHtml005.html











On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 10:46, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Hi Danny,
>
> If you want to get a feeling for SHACL's ability to throw a net over a
> graph, you could play around with the sample graph and sample shapes on the SHACL
> playground <http://shacl.org/playground/>.
>
> Next to data validation, in my experience SHACL is also good for
> describing how a dataset is structured, which can be a good starting point
> for generating documentation and diagrams. SHACL is a better fit for closed
> world models, while OWL better fits the open world assumption. But I don't
> think that SHACL should be cast as an alternative to OWL, although there is
> some overlap between the specifications.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
> 2018-08-15 5:43 GMT+02:00 Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>:
>
>> Once again I'm a little late to the party (but still determined to sup).
>> Got a bit disturbed by Kurt's post [1].
>>
>> I'm trying to find the point, it's not clear to me. What am I missing?
>>
>> I like the idea of a validation language, the Jena folks did a great
>> lint+ which was very useful. But is this/that really a constraint language?
>>
>> Missing an obvious one maybe, the locally closed world, applying
>> PROLOG-style rules.
>>
>> I like the idea of throwing a net over a graph, finding the little
>> fishies that slip out. But does this one actually catch anything?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Danny.
>>
>> [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-shacl-next-owl-kurt-cagle/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----
>>
>> http://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>
>>
>
>

-- 
----

http://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>