factsmission / dcat-ap-ch-shacl Goto Github PK

I think the lines 227 and 363 of the SHACL shape are incorrect.

According to the shape how it is now the following data would be valid:

@prefix ex: <https://example.org/ns#> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .

ex:myDataset a dct:Dataset ;
  schema:image ex:imageURL .

ex:imageURL a schema:URL .

However, according to schema.org schema:URL is a datatype hence data using it should look like this:

@prefix ex: <https://example.org/ns#> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .

ex:myDataset a dct:Dataset ;
  schema:image "http://imageURL.com"^^schema:URL .

Thus the shape should state the constraint sh:datatype instead of sh:class in the mentioned lines.

On your README you wrote under Other points to discuss :
Also, shouldn't the dct:publisher be named, rather than being an instance of foaf:Agent? Analogous questions can be asked for dcat:themeTaxonomy and foaf:homepage.

I would like to start the discussion with this issue:

I think the dct:publisher should be implemented similar to what the DCAT-AP does in it's shacl graph: https://github.com/SEMICeu/DCAT-AP/blob/master/releases/2.0.1/dcat-ap_2.0.1_shacl_shapes.ttl:

There an agent shape is added for it and the name is a mandatory property in it: see here (as copied from the DCAT-AP Shacl graph):

:Agent_Shape
    a sh:NodeShape ;
    sh:name "Agent"@en ;
    sh:property [
        sh:minCount 1 ;
        sh:nodeKind sh:Literal ;
        sh:path foaf:name ;
        sh:severity sh:Violation
    ], [
        sh:class skos:Concept ;
        sh:maxCount 1 ;
        sh:path dct:type ;
        sh:severity sh:Violation
    ] ;
    sh:targetClass foaf:Agent .

If this is implemented the name would be mandatory and this would answer your question above.
What do you think about this approach?

Given that the recommended shacl validator only accepts turtle

In the DCAT-AP-CH it is dcat:themeTaxanomy is not mandatory for the dcat:Catalog class, so the
sh:minCount 1 ; should be removed in my opinion.

In your shape ech-0200.shacl.ttl it looks like this:

:CatalogShape
  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:name "Catalog"@en ;
  sh:targetClass dcat:Catalog ;
  ...
  sh:property [
      sh:path dcat:themeTaxonomy ;
      sh:class skos:Concept-Scheme ;
      sh:minCount 1 ;
      sh:severity sh:Warning ;
    ] ;

WDYT?

What is the license of the published SHACL shapes? I'd like to re-use them and need to know if they are actually under an open source license. I'd propose to create a LICENSE.md file to clarify the license of this repository (I think GitHub has support to generate such a file automatically if you specify the license in the settings).