Re: associating RDF nodes with shapes

I am not sure how to proceed here. If you want, you could start a 
separate page where we try out your structure and we copy it over when 
we are done. Your draft below is omitting too many details and is very 
OWL centric to be a direct substitution. I also don't understand your 
example syntax, e.g. what does this mean:

<code>some ex:property ex:value <= constraint</code>

The bigger question is: why are we writing this document at all. 
Shouldn't our goal be to collect Requirements?

Holger


On 12/17/2014 4:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I took a close look at the node/shape association page, 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-5:_Resource_Shape_Association
>
> I would prefer an organization more like the following, as I think 
> that it presents a clearer picture.
>
>
> Where are Shapes/Constraints Validated
>
> 1/ A particular node
>
> A shape/constraint may be validated only on a particular node in an RDF
> graph.
>
> In ShEx this would be done via a validation call that explicitly contains
> the node and the shape.
>
> In OWL constraints this would be done via an axiom of the form
>
> <code>ex:node in constraint</code>
>
> 2/ Nodes that are instances of a class
>
> A shape/constraint may be validated against all members of a class.  The
> membership determination may be via explicit direct <code>rdf:type</code>
> links, via class membership in some RDF-compatible semantics, or via some
> intermediate process.
>
> In SPIN this would be done via a <code>spin:constraint</code> link 
> from the
> class to a SPIN constraint.
>
> In OWL constraints this would be done via an axiom of the form
>
> <code>ex:Class <= constraint</code>
>
> 3/ Nodes that have a particular property value
>
> A shape/constraint may be validated against nodes that have a particular
> property value.
>
> In OWL constraints this would be done via an axiom of the form
>
> <code>some ex:property ex:value <= constraint</code>
>
> 4/ All nodes
>
> A shape/constraint may be validated against all nodes (maybe only
> non-literal nodes?).
>
> In SPIN this would be done via a constraint on rdfs:Resource.
>
> In OWL constraints this would be done via an axiom of the form
>
> <code>owl:Thing <= constraint</code>
>
> In ShEx this would be done by a validation call that explicitly 
> mentions a
> shape that all nodes are supposed to match.
>
> 5/ Triples with a particular predicate
>
> A shape/constraint may be validated against all triples of a predicate.
>
> In OWL constraints this would be done via
>
> <code>ex:predicate <= constraint</code>
>
> 5/ Implicit
>
> The form of a shape/constraint might determine how it is validated.
>
> This is the general situation for OWL constraints.  An OWL constraint is
> just an axiom that is supposed to be true.  Some kinds of OWL constraints
> can be thought of being one of the types above, but other kinds of OWL
> constraints have particular validation patterns.  For example, an OWL
> constraint could require that a property is symmetric or transitive or 
> that
> the nodes that satisfy one constraint are precisely the same as those 
> that
> satisfy another, as in
>
> <code>ex:Person and some ex:SSN = ex:USResident and age > 2</code>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 23:51:17 UTC