Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace?

I can't imagine how we will work with a vocabulary that doesn't have 
ranges defined. For example, your argument against using "sh:mincount *" 
is that sh:mincount is defined as an integer. This will need to be 
defined for sh:minCount and perhaps it is there, but I don't see it in 
the version of shacl.ttl that is in github. I understand that properties 
like sh:predicate might be defined through their usage in the ttl file 
(e.g. that use of sh:predicate must meet one of the conditions in the 
ttl), but I'm not asking that the vocabulary state where sh:datatype can 
be used, just what RDF type is inferred about its value.

I do see a value in viewing SHACL as a closed SHACL-defined system, but 
I find that to be too restrictive. I also fear that it will be brittle 
(easily broken) and not allow for evolution of the language.

kc

On 11/12/15 12:41 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Ranges and domains MAY work, but may also introduce complications
> because we would then need to figure out what the implications are if
> someone runs SHACL with RDFS inferencing ON for the shapes graph. I'd
> prefer to put range info into the comments only for now, and possibly
> have an alternative OWL version. OWL is likely also better to express
> local restrictions, e.g. to say that sh:datatype can be used at
> sh:PropertyConstraint and sh:NodeConstraint, but not
> sh:InversePropertyConstraint. owl:Restrictions used via rdfs:subClassOf
> usually also don't lead to inferences. This may lead to three files
> published: core vocab, SHACL, OWL.
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 11/13/15 1:44 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/15 8:21 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> That sounds OK to me. I believe we should aim at a situation in which
>>> these two files can be mixed/overlaid without any ill side effects.
>>> Basically, the SHACL file can add triples to the URIs defined in the
>>> base vocab. I believe the vocab file could simply be a list of URIs,
>>> possibly with rdf:type triples, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:labels and
>>> rdfs:comments. I don't think anything else is needed.
>>
>>
>> At least ranges, which aid in correct use of the properties.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>>
>>> I had already implemented an automatic documentation generator in our
>>> previous round on this topic.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/12/15 2:04 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>> I propose the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We should publish two normative files: shacl-vocab.ttl and
>>>> shacl-shacl.ttl
>>>>
>>>> 2. shacl-vocab.ttl should be a simple RDFS vocabulary that does not
>>>> contain any shape information. It should be readable by anyone
>>>> knowledgeable in RDFS, but not SHACL
>>>>
>>>> 3. shacl-shacl.ttl should use SHACL to define the shape of valid SHACL
>>>> documents
>>>>
>>>> 4. both files should also be automatically transformed to HTML, e.g.
>>>> as in [3]. There exists XSLT for transforming RDFS vocabularies
>>>> [4].This transform could be reimplemented in Javascript and integrated
>>>> with ReSpec. A similar transform could be developed for SHACL
>>>> documents.
>>>>
>>>> 5. W3C should host these files and support Turtle/HTML content
>>>> negotiation as per [1] and [2].
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
>>>> [3] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/JazzProcessVocabulary
>>>> [4] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/PublishingRdfVocabularies
>>>>
>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 18:54:21 UTC