Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SHACL and DCAT profiling #1387

Open
bertvannuffelen opened this issue Jun 24, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

SHACL and DCAT profiling #1387

bertvannuffelen opened this issue Jun 24, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
dcat feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG future-work issue deferred to the next standardization round requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)

Comments

@bertvannuffelen
Copy link

Hi,

I have observed that the current explicit making Catalog a subclass of Dataset is hindering the usage of SHACL and also DCAT profiling.

The situation is as follows: in many DCAT profiles additional constraints are placed on datasets. And they are applicable solely to datasets in that catalog, not to the catalog entity. However by enforcing Catalog being a sublcass of Dataset and expressing this in the RDF representation natural SHACL profiling breaks.

Consider the following example profile:

  1. A catalog must have a title and a dataset
  2. An dataset must have as value for dc:accessRights http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/access-right/PUBLIC

The expectation from this profile is that the following example catalog is valid:

<http://example.com/catalog> a dcat:Catalog.
<http://example.com/catalog> dc:title "Example catalog"@en.
<http://example.com/catalog> dcat:dataset <http://example.com/dataset>.

<http://example.com/dataset> a dcat:Dataset.
<http://example.com/dataset> dc:accessRights <http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/access-right/PUBLIC>.

Unfortunately it isn't. According to SHACL the above RDF is invalid, because the ex:catalog has not a value PUBLIC for dc:accessRights.

It means that we have to redesign and introduce in any DCAT profile the notion of Datasets which do not have Catalogs as subclass in order to avoid the propagation of any constraint on a dataset to the catalog.

To test the case yourself: use https://www.itb.ec.europa.eu/shacl/any/upload with following content:

The last 2 bullets are important: it loads the DCAT rdf file into the SHACL validator and then the error is triggered. If one does not load the DCAT rdf file, then it is all fine.

For a vocabulary which is aimed to be profiled this is a very annoying situation. Because in any profile one will add additional constraints on Datasets. I also do not know how do I express in a profile that the constraints on the dataset are not applicable to the catalog entity in that profile in the current setting without forcing the introduction of a subclass MyProfileDataset which is not a Catalog. Any suggestions?

@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added dcat feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG labels Jun 25, 2021
@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added this to To do in DCAT Sprint: Feedback via automation Jun 25, 2021
@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added this to the DCAT3 3PWD milestone Jun 25, 2021
@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added the requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary) label Jun 25, 2021
@w3c w3c deleted a comment from jakubklimek Jun 25, 2021
@andrea-perego andrea-perego modified the milestones: DCAT3 3PWD, DCAT3 4PWD Jan 26, 2022
@riccardoAlbertoni riccardoAlbertoni added the future-work issue deferred to the next standardization round label Apr 13, 2023
@riccardoAlbertoni
Copy link
Contributor

Marked as future work, as we might want to reconsider this under a new perspective in a next round of standardization.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dcat feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG future-work issue deferred to the next standardization round requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants