ISSUE-78: Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract

sh:abstract

Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Holger Knublauch

Opened on:

2015-08-04

Description:

The current Turtle file uses a property sh:abstract to mark certain classes as "abstract" similar to how object-oriented systems work. By marking a class as sh:abstract=true, tools such as data entry editors can make sure that users do not directly instantiate an abstract class. The flag also signals the intention of the modeler.

There are plenty of examples of such abstract classes in the SHACL spec (see Turtle file), and there is also a large body of use cases in TopQuadrant's customer scenarios where such a flag has proven to be useful. TQ had introduced various home-baked alternatives including spin:abstract for that purpose, but we would prefer this to be a standard feature.

PROPOSAL: SHACL should include a boolean property sh:abstract that can be set true for classes (if approved then possibly limited to sh:ShapeClass). The validation constraint for abstract classes is that any instance of an abstract class must also have at least one rdf:type for a non-abstract (transitive) subclass of that class.

Note that the condition above will work regardless of whether RDFS inferencing is activated.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting (from eric@w3.org on 2016-05-05)
2. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-05-02)
3. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-29)
4. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from eric@w3.org on 2016-04-17)
5. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-15)
6. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-04-14)
7. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-14)
8. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-13)
9. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-12)
10. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-12)
11. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from eric@w3.org on 2016-04-12)
12. Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-04-11)
13. ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-11)
14. Some issues that may be close to resolution (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-06)
15. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-19)
16. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-12-31)
17. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-12-31)
18. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2015-12-31)
19. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-12-30)
20. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-12-29)
21. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-12-16)
22. Re: ISSUE-78 Discussions (from simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at on 2015-12-15)
23. ISSUE-78 Discussions (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-12-15)
24. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-11-09)
25. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-11-09)
26. Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-11-09)
27. Re: modelling using SHACL - a bad idea - ISSUE-23 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-08-05)
28. shapes-ISSUE-78 (sh:abstract): Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-08-04)

Related notes:

Display change log