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

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
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