Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec]

On 10/1/15 5:04 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Now that it is more clear I would like to propose my resolution of 
> issue-86.
>
> I suggest the spec mentions something in the lines of the following 
> sentence
> ontology or vocabulary designers that want to publish SHACL 
> constraints along with their schemas are encouraged (or SHOULD) either 
> define the associated shapes in the same document with the schema or 
> link to them through the sh:shapesGraph property.

sh:shapesGraph would not have the right effect. It would basically only 
say that the ontology (e.g. definition of skos:Concept) itself would 
have to follow the shape definitions. I believe it should be owl:imports 
instead.

Overall, I don't think we need to specify or recommend anything here. 
There will be different design patterns emerging, and we cannot 
anticipate yet which variation people will prefer, how SHACL will relate 
to OWL etc.

Holger


>
> This is independent of Peter's suggestion and if the WG thinks that 
> Peter's suggestion should also exist in the spec I would vote +1 on 
> this as well.
>
> Dimitris
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas 
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de 
> <mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>     <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         I do not see that SHACL needs any connection between a shapes
>         graph and an
>         ontology definition.
>
>         For purposes of designing a collection of shapes, having
>         access to an ontology
>         that provides axioms about the classes in a collection of
>         shapes is handy.
>         However, validating SHACL shapes or documents against a data
>         graph or node in
>         a data graph does not need any link going from the shapes
>         graph to an ontology
>         graph.   A SHACL validation engine does need to have access to
>         ontology axioms
>         to determine whether a node in the data graph is a SHACL
>         instance of a class,
>         but this is best done by including a graph with the required
>         ontology axioms
>         into the data graph.
>
>         I therefore vote 0 for a) and -1 for the other options.
>
>
>     Peter,
>
>     I also do not think that shacl needs a link to an ontology/vocabulary.
>     The issue subject is indeed not clear but the intent was about the
>     reverse relation: ontology/vocabulary to shacl
>
>     e.g. skos could define their additional constraints [1] in shacl
>     and my issue was about how could e.g. skos publish these constraints
>
>     Dimitris
>
>     [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L2422
>
>
>         I would vote +1 for a proposal like:
>
>         PROPOSED: The SHACL spec states that there is no need for a
>         link from a SHACL
>         shapes graph to an ontology graph and does not define such a
>         link.  The SHACL
>         spec further states that there is nothing in SHACL to prevent
>         a SHACL shapes
>         graph from including ontology axioms or importing ontology
>         axioms, but that
>         such inclusion or importation has no effect on determining
>         whether a node in a
>         data graph is a SHACL instance of a class.  The SHACL spec
>         states that
>         ontology axioms that affect SHACL are either part of the data
>         graph or
>         included from the data graph.   The SHACL spec mentions that
>         SHACL shape
>         graphs are often best developed in conjunction with a set of
>         ontology axioms
>         and that tools for the development of SHACL shapes may want to
>         provide
>         mechanisms for viewing axioms from a separate ontology.
>
>         This proposal clearly makes the required distinction between
>         what is required
>         for SHACL validation and thus should be part of the SHACL
>         language, and what
>         is useful for SHACL development and thus should not be part of
>         the SHACL language.
>
>
>         peter
>
>
>         On 09/10/2015 01:09 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
>         Tracker wrote:
>         > shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with
>         ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec]
>         >
>         > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/86
>         >
>         > Raised by: Dimitris Kontokostas
>         > On product: SHACL Spec
>         >
>         > Related to ISSUE-44, this is issue is about ways to
>         associate an ontology or vocabulary to a set of shapes.
>         >
>         > Possible ways to resolve it
>         > a) SHACL spec says nothing about associating
>         ontologies/vocabularies with shapes
>         > b) SHACL spec suggests the use of owl:imports
>         > c) SHACL spec suggests the use of sh:shapesGraph
>         > d) SHACL spec suggests shapes are defined in the same file
>         with the ontology/vocabulary
>         > e) SHACL spec suggests a combination of (d) with (b) or (c)
>         >
>         >
>         >
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dimitris Kontokostas
>     Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
>     Association
>     Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu,
>     http://rdfunit.aksw.org
>     Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>     Research Group: http://aksw.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia 
> Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu, 
> http://rdfunit.aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>