ISSUE-1: What inferencing can or must be used?

Inferencing

What inferencing can or must be used?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL Spec
Raised by:
Arnaud Le Hors
Opened on:
2014-11-18
Description:
The question of whether any inferencing is to be performed in relation with the processing/use of Shapes has been raised and needs to be answered.
And if no inferencing is to be performed, can we still use constructs such as owl:imports without the associated entailment regime?
See wiki page: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-1:_What_inferencing_can_or_must_be_used
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: Decomposing shapes (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-10-14)
  2. Re: Decomposing shapes (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-10-13)
  3. Re: Decomposing shapes (from eric@w3.org on 2016-10-13)
  4. Proposal to reopen ISSUE-128 and change resolution (ISSUE-164) (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2016-06-09)
  5. proposed reply to Tom Baker [was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-19)
  6. Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2016-05-10)
  7. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-25)
  8. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-25)
  9. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-06-24)
  10. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-06-24)
  11. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-24)
  12. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-06-24)
  13. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-24)
  14. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-24)
  15. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-23)
  16. Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2015-06-19)
  17. Specific proposals for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-19)
  18. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-18)
  19. Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-18)
  20. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-11)
  21. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-10)
  22. Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-06-10)
  23. Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-10)
  24. Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-10)
  25. Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-06-09)
  26. Re: shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-05)
  27. Re: update to SHACL-SPARQL (ISSUE-62) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-03)
  28. Re: implementing today's resolution (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-02)
  29. Re: implementing today's resolution (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-06-01)
  30. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-05-25)
  31. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-05-22)
  32. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-05-22)
  33. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-05-21)
  34. Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-05-21)
  35. Re: ISSUE-1: Inferencing and current databases (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-05-21)
  36. Re: ISSUE-1: Inferencing and current databases (from kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2015-05-21)
  37. Proposal for ISSUE-1 (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-05-20)
  38. shapes-ACTION-26: Draft a proposal for issue-1 (with holger) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-05-20)
  39. ISSUE-1: Inferencing and current databases (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-04-13)
  40. Re: shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-02)
  41. Re: shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-03-28)
  42. shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-03-28)
  43. Re: RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-03-17)
  44. RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-03-04)
  45. Re: ISSUE-I Wiki Page Created (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2014-12-12)
  46. ISSUE-I Wiki Page Created (from ryman@ca.ibm.com on 2014-12-11)
  47. AW: tracker brittleness (from ssteyska@wu.ac.at on 2014-12-05)
  48. Re: Role of SPARQL (from eric@w3.org on 2014-11-24)
  49. Re: Role of SPARQL (from dallemang@workingontologist.com on 2014-11-24)
  50. Re: Role of SPARQL (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2014-11-24)
  51. Re: Role of SPARQL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2014-11-22)
  52. Role of SPARQL (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2014-11-21)
  53. RE: Can Shapes always be Classes? (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2014-11-19)
  54. RE: Can Shapes always be Classes? (from irene@topquadrant.com on 2014-11-19)
  55. rdfdatashapestracker-ISSUE-1 (Entailment regime): What is the entailment regime? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-11-18)

Related notes:

Example of RDFS entailment used in validation in http://www.w3.org/mid/20141113160850.GD27747@w3.org .

Eric Prud'hommeaux, 18 Nov 2014, 17:23:49

Entailment regime is a SPARQL concept. Given that the use of SPARQL is not certain, something that is not tied to SPARQL would be better.

The question is what meaning is given to inputs that are being checked. Are these inputs documents, so that their surface syntax is important? Are these inputs representations of RDF graphs, so that only resultant RDF graphs can be checked? Are these inputs representations of RDF graphs under some W3C RDF semantics for RDF graphs? Are these inputs representations of something else, like a Z model?

Peter Patel-Schneider, 18 Nov 2014, 17:36:40

RESOLUTION:
1. SHACL includes a property sh:entailment that can be set on the shapes graph to ensure that a certain entailment regime is activated on the dataset.
2. sh:valueClass must also match subclasses, with its SPARQL implementation using rdfs:subClassOf* as described in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueTypePropertyConstraint
3. SHACL shall include another property sh:directValueType that matches ?focusNode rdf:type ?type (for OSLC use case)
4. sh:scopeClass must also include nodes with an rdf:type link to nodes connected to the class via the transitive closure of rdfs:subClassOf
5. (revising earlier resolution) sh:valueClass must also include nodes with an rdf:type link to nodes connected to the class via the transitive closure of rdfs:subClassOf
6. SHACL shall include a high-level mechanism, functionally equivalent to what would be called sh:directScopeType, to express the scope of direct instances

Close ISSUE-1, based on previous resolutions
See http://www.w3.org/2015/06/25-shapes-minutes.html#resolution10

Arnaud Le Hors, 25 Jun 2015, 20:48:34

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 1.html,v 1.1 2018/11/26 09:03:26 carine Exp $