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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> One design pattern that will emerge is to have 3 graphs:
>
> - dataGraph owl:imports ontology ; sh:shapesGraph shapesGraph .
> - shapesGraph owl:imports ontology
>
> rdfs:subClassOf triples are needed to be present both in the shapes graph
> and the data graph in several places, e.g. to validate sh:valueClass
> constraints. Yet the shapes also need the ontology for the sh:scopeClass
> triples.
>

I agree that the ontology should exist along with the data but not
necessarily together with the shapes. We don't need to perform any
transitive closure of rdfs:subClassOf in the scope, or are we?


> Needless to say, the design becomes easier if we have sh:ShapeClass - then
> the shapes naturally go with the ontology and you just need two graphs. But
> some people in the WG seem to strongly dislike this pattern. I personally
> clearly prefer option d) but the best way forward would be to let the users
> pick their preferred pattern. We don't need to spell anything out in the
> spec IMHO.


Publishing shapes along with an ontology will will probably become an
emerging pattern after the adoption of shapes.

If we say nothing then we are indirectly promoting (d).
- owl:imports complicates things because it will load the shapes along with
the ontology and thus, together with the data every time someone imports an
ontology. It will also load shapes in ontology editors.
- sh:shapesGraph would be more convenient since it would bring the
sh:shapesGraph triple in the data graph and make shapes auto-discoverable
(but not auto-loaded). On the other hand it might not be 100% consistent
with the meaning of sh:shapesGraph.  We suggest to use it in the data graph
and the ontology is inherently a schema.

In my opinion we should suggest a combination of (c) and (d)

Best,
Dimitris


>
> Holger
>
>
>
> On 9/10/2015 18:09, 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