Re: Specific proposals for ISSUE-1

+1

However I suggest a name change.

Use sh:valueClass in Proposal 2. This consistent with sh:scopeClass in
Proposal 4.
Use sh:valueType in Proposal 3.

-- Arthur

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas
<kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I suggest we split the topic into several resolutions:
>>
>>
>> Proposal 1: SHACL should include a property sh:sparqlEntailment that can
>> be used to specify a required inferencing level for each SPARQL query, as
>> described in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-entailment
>>
>>
>> Proposal 2: sh:valueType must also match subclasses, with its SPARQL
>> implementation using rdfs:subClassOf* as described in
>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueTypePropertyConstraint
>>
>>
>> Proposal 3: SHACL shall include another property sh:directValueType that
>> only matches the directly asserted types (for OSLC use case).
>>
>>
>> Proposal 4: sh:scopeClass must also include instances of subclasses, with
>> its SPARQL implementation using rdfs:subClassOf*
>>
>>
>> Proposal 5: SHACL shall include a high-level mechanism to express the
>> scope of direct instances. (Details on that depend on our resolution to the
>> general scoping topic - I hope we allow templates there).
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 00:50:51 UTC