Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> One problem with having all shapes initiate validation is that embedded
> shapes
> would as well.
>
> So in
>
> ex:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ;
>   sh:scopeClass ex:Person ;
>   sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:dependent ;
>                 sh:valueShape [ a sh:Shape ;
>                                 sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:SSN ;
>                                               sh:minCount 1 ] ] ] .
>
> the scope of the embedded shape would be all nodes in the data graph,
> resulting in validation reports for any node that does not have a value for
> ex:SSN.
>
> If all shapes are to have scopes then there are ways around this problem.
> One
> would be that shapes are not embedded in other shapes.  Instead there
> would be
> a new kind of SHACL thing that is used when the current effect of embedding
> shapes in shapes is desired.
>

I hope this is clearer now.
I also made a first big revision of sections 2.1 & 2.2 with the new
terminology in mind
Any comments are welcome

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/aa99a15ec0a0fab708f8f858bc3666402b589c87

Best,
Dimitris


>
> peter
>
>
> On 05/14/2016 01:00 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > That may be what one interprets from the current spec, but it doesn't
> preclude
> > us from considering the logic that I proposed, which is that a shape's
> scope
> > is the data graph unless further scoping is defined. Obviously, this
> makes
> > more sense to me than requiring a scope. Also, we do not at this point
> have a
> > scope defined that would represent the entire data graph. How would I
> work
> > with a set of triples with no defined classes and of which I could not
> know a
> > priori the identity of a node?
> >
> > I know this seems outlandish, but I'm thinking of the possibility of
> operating
> > on received data that you need to investigate to see what state it is
> in. One
> > role for validation is to analyze data sources that don't present with
> > sufficient rigor or with pre-defined documentation. Some validation
> programs
> > are going to have to work with unknowns and with bad data. This is one
> of the
> > functions of validation in the massively shared cultural heritage
> community.
> > One needs to be able to get some information out of data graphs that
> don't
> > conform to expectations. It seems to me that being able to do some
> checking on
> > the data graph as a whole could have value. (But I'll also check with my
> peeps
> > about this and get back to this list.)
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/14/16 12:23 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> >> Yes, this was my interpretation as well, but I wanted to confirm.
> >>
> >>
> >> Irene
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/14/16, 3:01 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If a shape has no scopes then
> >>> no validation is initiated by that shape.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT