ISSUE-49: Distinction between scoped and unscoped shapes

scoped/unscoped shapes

Distinction between scoped and unscoped shapes

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL Spec
Raised by:
Dimitris Kontokostas
Opened on:
2015-05-13
Description:
From the current discussions it looks like SHACL is going to support both scoped and unscoped shapes.

The scope of a shape can be a class (i.e. "rdf:type ex:ClassA) or something more generic as suggested in issue 48, the shacl-sparql proposal or http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scope.
The scope in this case acts as detection and means that all resources that match a scope must comply with a shape definition.

Unscoped shapes are shapes with no scope and their application depends either on the current context or a starting node.

To what extend should SHACL re-use or mix scoped and unscoped shapes? possible options are:
1) scoped and unscoped shapes are different and cannot be mixed
2) scoped and unscoped shapes are different but can be mixed
3) scoped and unscoped shapes can be used interchangeable. In this case scope will probably play a different role in each case: detection in scoped shapes or validation in unscoped shapes.

Some ambiguous cases are:

* sh:nodeShape / sh:valueShape are used to link a resource with a shape with e.g. "ex:resA sh:nodeShape ex:shapeA" or an sh:property value with a shape.
Intuitively, sh:nodeShape and sh:valueShape have a kind of an unscoped shape behaviour using ex:resA as a starting node or the current focus node as context.
In this case, is a scope allowed to exist in ex:shapeA?
in the case of sh:nodeShape for example, how should shacl interpret sh:shapeA if it had the following scopes:
- "sh:nodeShape ex:shapeA" is kind of problematic on how validation is initialized
- "sh:nodeShape ex:shapeB"
- "rdf:type ex:ClassA" scope would probably have to turn into a validation rule (instead of detection) and ensure the existence of "rdf:type ex:ClassA"

* If a shape has a scope but is also used in an unscoped context (like above) is the scoped validation still applied?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-20)
  2. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-20)
  3. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-05-19)
  4. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-05-19)
  5. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-05-19)
  6. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-05-19)
  7. Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-05-19)
  8. Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-03-17)
  9. Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-03-15)
  10. ISSUE-49 Resolution added to spec (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-18)
  11. Re: followup questions to Arthur's proposal regarding scope/filter (ISSUE-49) (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-01-08)
  12. Re: followup questions to Arthur's proposal regarding scope/filter (ISSUE-49) (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-01-08)
  13. Re: followup questions to Arthur's proposal regarding scope/filter (ISSUE-49) (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-07)
  14. Further Response to Eric's Comment on ISSUE-49 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-07)
  15. followup questions to Arthur's proposal regarding scope/filter (ISSUE-49) (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-07)
  16. Re: ISSUE-49 Meaning of Filter Shapes (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-12-18)
  17. ISSUE-49 Meaning of Filter Shapes (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-12-17)
  18. Re: review of SHACL document (Second pass of responses) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-09-03)
  19. Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-08-20)
  20. Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-09)
  21. Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-06-08)
  22. Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-06-08)
  23. Re: [ISSUE-62] A clean proposal with sh:Scope (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2015-06-05)
  24. tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-06-03)
  25. Re: tracker not tracking emails to the working group mailing list (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-06-03)
  26. Fwd: Re: ISSUE-23: sh:ShapeClass? (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2015-05-14)
  27. shapes-ISSUE-49 (Dimitris): Distinction between scoped and unscoped shapes [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-05-13)

Related notes:

Postponed on 14 May 2015:
See http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03

Arnaud Le Hors, 15 May 2015, 03:47:42

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-49, adopting Arthur's and Peter's suggestions https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0024.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0025.html

See https://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03

Arnaud Le Hors, 14 Jan 2016, 21:22:46

Display change log ATOM feed


Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, Chairs, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $