Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Common Foundations for SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Three graph schema languages are shown to share a single common core.

desk verdict First common formal framework for the three graph schema languages; the load-bearing ShEx-to-standard equivalence is explicitly unproved and should be fixed or scoped. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01295 v1 pith:Y4XJX2XF submitted 2025-02-03 cs.DB cs.AI

S. Ahmetaj , I. Boneva , J. Hidders , K. Hose , M. Jakubowski , J.E. Labra-Gayo , W. Martens , F. Mogavero
show 6 more authors
F. Murlak C. Okulmus A. Polleres O. Savkovic M. Simkus D. Tomaszuk
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AI
keywords SHACLShExPG-SchemagraphschemalanguagescommondatamodelvalidationRDFpropertygraphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema — three schema languages built by different communities for different graph data models — can be studied on one common graph model, and that the functionality common to all three is exactly the language CoGSL. If true, any constraint written in CoGSL can be expressed in all three languages, with an explicit translation from CoGSL into SHACL and into ShEx. A reader would care because it replaces three apparently unrelated formalisms with one frame for comparing expressive power and for planning translations between RDF and property-graph schemas.

What carries the argument

The Common Graph Data Model and the selector–shape pair are the two devices that carry the argument. A common graph is a pair $(E,\rho)$ with $E$ a finite set of edges carrying predicates and $\rho$ a finite-domain partial function assigning values to node–key pairs; a schema is a set of pairs $(\mathit{sel},\varphi)$ where $\mathit{sel}$ selects focus nodes or values and $\varphi$ is a shape, with a graph valid if every selected item satisfies its shape. On top of this, the paper defines CoGSL as a restricted grammar over PG-Schema whose shapes use only star-free path expressions, single-edge traversals, closed content types, and the closing operator $\nexists\neg P$, and proves the common-core property by translating CoGSL shapes into nested SHACL and ShEx shapes.

What would settle it

Take any schema written in standard non-recursive ShEx (with shape names, extra predicates, closed shapes, and repetition intervals) and any common graph, and check whether the standard validation outcome matches the Section 4 abstraction; a single mismatch witness would refute Claim 1 and, with it, the ShEx half of Proposition 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a schema written in CoGSL, the Common Graph Schema Language, is exactly as strong as what SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema can all say about a graph. The paper defines a common graph as a finite set of predicate-labelled edges together with a partial function mapping node–key pairs to values, which embeds both RDF and property graphs, and recasts each language as a set of selector–shape pairs. It then proves, as Proposition 1, that every common schema has an equivalent SHACL schema and an equivalent ShEx schema. It also exhibits constraints that cannot cross the boundaries: ShEx counts triples rather than counting distinct nodes, so it cannot express SHACL-style counting of distinct ends of union paths, while SHACL and PG-Schema cannot express ShEx-style equality of counts of two edge labels; PG-Schema alone can quantify over all nodes with a universal selector. The upshot is a precise map of overlapping and distinctive functionality.

Load-bearing premise

The ShEx half of the common-core claim rests on Claim 1 in Appendix C — that the paper's ShEx abstraction is expressively equivalent to non-recursive standard ShEx on common graphs — which is asserted without a correctness proof; the PG-Schema comparison makes similarly informal reduction claims, so if any of these equivalences fails, the common core is not about the actual languages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every constraint expressible in CoGSL can be written in SHACL and in ShEx, so CoGSL can serve as a neutral notation for schema constraints that users know will carry over.
  • The three languages are not merely stylistic variants: ShEx's triple-counting semantics and the node-counting semantics of SHACL and PG-Schema give different expressive powers, so a schema must be chosen with the intended count in mind.
  • PG-Schema can close the entire graph by selecting all nodes with the true selector, whereas SHACL and ShEx schemas always leave some disconnected parts unconstrained, limiting what those languages can say about the whole dataset.
  • The common framework yields a written map of which constructs are safe to translate among the three languages and which are not, supporting future integration work and teaching.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Claim 1 of Appendix C were proved, CoGSL would also be a faithful common core for standard non-recursive ShEx; until then, the ShEx half of the comparison concerns the paper's abstraction rather than the standard language itself.
  • The selector–shape pair format is the same principle used in XML schema languages such as DTDs and Schematron, so the CoGSL grammar could plausibly be adapted to express a common core that spans XML and graph validators.
  • A practical test of the framework would be to implement the two Proposition 1 translations and check on a corpus of schemas that validation outcomes coincide; the proof sketches suggest the translations are simple enough to automate.
  • The common graph model deliberately omits node identity comparisons, edge properties, node labels, and parallel same-label edges, so the common-core result should not be read as a statement about schemas that rely on such features.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a common graph data model and recasts non-recursive SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema as shape-based formalisms over this model. It then defines CoGSL, a fragment intended to capture the functionalities shared by the three languages, and proves (Proposition 1, Appendix E) that every common schema can be translated into equivalent SHACL and ShEx schemas. The appendices relate the paper's abstractions to the actual standards: Appendix B discusses SHACL deviations, Appendix C claims expressive equivalence between the paper's ShEx and non-recursive standard ShEx, and Appendix D compares shape-based PG-Schema with original PG-Schema. The central value of the paper is thus a formal framework for comparing the three schema languages and for explaining their common core.

Significance. If the fidelity claims hold, this is a valuable reference formalization for a community that currently lacks a uniform basis for comparing SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema. The paper's strengths are its precise definitions, the detailed constructive translations in Appendix E, the explicit running example expressed in all three formalisms, and the honest discussion of where the abstractions deviate from the standards. The proof of Proposition 1 is given in full, with per-lemma translations for SHACL and ShEx. However, the paper explicitly leaves the ShEx-to-standard-ShEx equivalence unproved, and the PG-Schema fidelity rests on informal 'it is not hard to show' reductions; these are load-bearing for the claim that CoGSL is a common core of the actual languages rather than merely of the paper's abstractions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Claim 1] The central fidelity claim for ShEx is explicitly presented without a correctness proof. The text states that the semantics-preservation of the translations between non-recursive s-ShEx and the paper's ShEx 'is presented without a correctness proof', and the surrounding sections rely on this claim: Section 4 and Appendix C.5 use the ShEx abstraction for the expressiveness separations in Examples 9 and 10 and in Proposition 2. If the extra-elimination rewriting in C.4.4 or the closed/open encodings in C.4.5 and C.4.6 do not preserve validity, then the comparison is with a language that is not actual ShEx. The manuscript must supply a formal s-ShEx semantics and a semantic-preservation proof for each translation rule, or else explicitly restate which claims concern the abstraction rather than standard ShEx.
  2. [Appendix D, especially D.3.1-D.3.2] The faithfulness of the shape-based PG-Schema abstraction is asserted through informal reductions rather than proved. Section 5 says the abstraction 'faithfully captures the expressive power of the original PG-Schema' up to the query language, and Section 6 uses this abstraction to define CoGSL. The simulations in D.3.1 (node-type and edge-type coverage constraints) and D.3.2 (elimination of edge-type tests in path expressions, including the case analysis for negated edge types) are described as 'not hard to show' and 'not hard to see'. These reductions need precise statements and proofs; without them, the claim that CoGSL is common to the actual languages is unsupported for PG-Schema.
  3. [Section 5 and Appendix D.3.5] The paper itself notes in D.3.5 that the restriction to single-atom formulas 'limits the expressive power of PG-Schema'. This directly qualifies the 'faithfully captures' statement made in Section 5. If shape-based PG-Schema is strictly weaker than PG-Schema on Common Graphs, then Proposition 1's translations target a restricted abstraction. The paper should state precisely in which direction the equivalence with original PG-Schema is claimed, and should make explicit that features such as Key constraints and multi-variable counting are excluded from the common core by construction rather than because they are absent from the other two languages.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Figure 1] The predicate 'hasAcccess' appears to be a typo for 'hasAccess'; please correct it consistently in the text and figures.
  2. [Definition 11] The sentence 'The semantics of PG-Schemas is defned just like in Section 2.4' contains a typo: 'defned' should be 'defined'.
  3. [Appendix C.4.1] The text says 'We show in Section C.4.2 that the two variants have equivalent expressive power,' but the section gives rewriting rules; please state the equivalence claim precisely and label the rules as such.
  4. [Appendix C.5.2, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 is only a single sentence. Since the lemma underpins the ShEx/SHACL counting separation in Example 10, please expand the induction, especially for the semantics of triple expressions under disjoint union and repetition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: Proposition 1 and the CoGSL translations are proved from the paper's own definitions; the main fidelity risk is the explicitly unproved Claim 1, which is an omitted proof rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. CoGSL (Definition 12) is explicitly defined as a fragment of PG-Schema, and Proposition 1 is proved in Appendix E by explicit translation lemmas (Lemmas 2-11) that construct equivalent SHACL and ShEx shapes from each common shape and prove the equivalence by induction on the structure of the expressions. These translations do not assume the target result: they map syntactic constructs of CoGSL to syntactic constructs of SHACL and ShEx and verify the semantics from the definitions inside the paper. No parameter is fitted to any data, and no quantity is called a prediction after being used as an input. The strongest fidelity concern is Claim 1 in Appendix C, which asserts that the Section 4 ShEx abstraction is expressively equivalent to non-recursive standard ShEx and says of the translations, "The claim is presented without a correctness proof, as it would require to introduce here a formal semantics for s-ShEx." This is a genuine omitted proof and a load-bearing assumption if the results are read as statements about standard ShEx, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper supplies explicit translation tables (C.4.5, C.4.6) and refers to an external semantics [8] for the missing verification. Similarly, the PG-Schema fidelity arguments in Appendix D rely on "it is not hard to show" simulations and on prior work [2] with substantial author overlap; these are proof sketches rather than definitions that already contain the target equivalence. Because several fidelity-critical reductions lean on self-authored prior work and are left as sketches, a low nonzero score is warranted, but no central formal claim reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper has no fitted parameters and introduces no physical entities. The axioms consist of modeling and faithfulness assumptions: the common graph data model adequately represents RDF and property graphs, and the paper's abstractions of SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema faithfully capture the standard languages. The ShEx and PG-Schema fidelity assumptions are asserted more than proven.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Common graphs (Definition 1) capture the essential common aspects of RDF and property graphs, so results over common graphs transfer to both data models.
    The paper justifies this via Appendix A by identifying RDF and property graphs with common graphs, but this requires accepting restrictions such as single-valued keys, no node labels, no parallel same-label edges, and no edge properties. Section 2.1 and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The ShEx abstraction defined in Section 4 is expressively equivalent to non-recursive standard ShEx on common graphs.
    Claim 1 in Appendix C states this equivalence and explicitly says it is presented without a correctness proof; it is needed to make the ShEx comparison faithful.
  • domain assumption Shape-based PG-Schema faithfully captures the expressive power of original PG-Schema (up to the choice of external query language).
    Section 5 states this and Appendix D argues via reductions that are partially asserted ('It is not hard to show') rather than fully proved, e.g., D.2.1, D.3.1, D.3.2.
  • domain assumption The SHACL abstraction used in Section 3 corresponds to standard SHACL.
    Appendix B explains deviations (no language tags, no node kind tests, no class targets) and cites [24] for the close correspondence; the paper does not prove this correspondence itself.
  • standard math Standard mathematical background: finite sets, grammars, induction.
    Used throughout without comment; uncontroversial.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Common Foundations for SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4XJX2XF

@misc{pith2026250201295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Common Foundations for SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4XJX2XF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01295}
}
read the original abstract

Graphs have emerged as an important foundation for a variety of applications, including capturing and reasoning over factual knowledge, semantic data integration, social networks, and providing factual knowledge for machine learning algorithms. To formalise certain properties of the data and to ensure data quality, there is a need to describe the schema of such graphs. Because of the breadth of applications and availability of different data models, such as RDF and property graphs, both the Semantic Web and the database community have independently developed graph schema languages: SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema. Each language has its unique approach to defining constraints and validating graph data, leaving potential users in the dark about their commonalities and differences. In this paper, we provide formal, concise definitions of the core components of each of these schema languages. We employ a uniform framework to facilitate a comprehensive comparison between the languages and identify a common set of functionalities, shedding light on both overlapping and distinctive features of the three languages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The media service common graph. key privileged. We note that the presence of the key email (resp., of the key (credit) card) is associated with, and indeed identifies users (resp., accounts). It is easy to see that every common graph is a property graph (as per the formal definition of property graphs [2]). A common graph can also be seen as a set of triples, as in RDF. Let E = (N × P × N) ∪ (N × K × V) . Then, a co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two graphs indistinguishable by ShEx Example 8. Let us now see how the concrete constraints from Example 2 can be handled in ShEx. {card− . {⊤} ; ⊤} ⇒ test(int) (C1) {ownsAccount. {⊤} ; ⊤} ⇒ {email. {⊤} ; ⊤} (C2) {email− . {⊤} ; ⊤} ⇒  (email− . {⊤}) ≤1 ◦ (C3) {card. {⊤} ; ⊤} ⇒ {privileged.¬test(true)} ◦ ∨  (hasAcccess− . {privileged.test(true)} ◦ ) ∗ ◦ (C4) {email. {⊤} ; ⊤} ⇒  (hasAcccess. {⊤}) ≤5 ◦ (C5) We next … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A standard ShEx schema. A s-ShEx schema (𝐿, def ) is called recursive, when there is a shape name 𝑙 ∈ 𝐿 whose definition def (𝑙) uses a reference @𝑙 to itself, either directly or transitively through references to other shape names. Every standard non-recursive ShEx schema can be rewritten to an equivalent schema without references, simply by replacing every reference with its definition. In other words, ref￾erences… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abstract syntax for s-ShEx. C.4 Translations between ShEx and s-ShEx In this section, we introduce a back and forth translation between non-recursive s-ShEx and ShEx. We claim that these translations preserve the semantics w.r.t. the validity of a graph. The claim is p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reutter, Ognjen Savkovic, and Mantas Šimkus

    Medina Andresel, Julien Corman, Magdalena Ortiz, Juan L. Reutter, Ognjen Savkovic, and Mantas Šimkus. 2020. Stable Model Semantics for Recursive SHACL. In The Web Conference (WWW) . ACM / IW3C2, 1570–1580. doi:10.1145/ 3366423.3380229

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Renzo Angles, Angela Bonifati, Stefania Dumbrava, George Fletcher, Alastair Green, Jan Hidders, Bei Li, Leonid Libkin, Victor Marsault, Wim Martens, Filip Murlak, Stefan Plantikow, Ognjen Savkovic, Michael Schmidt, Juan Sequeda, Slawek Staworko, Dominik Tomaszuk, Hannes Voigt, Domagoj Vrgoc, Mingxi Wu, and Dusan Zivkovic. 2023. PG-Schema: Schemas for Prop...

    doi:10.1145/3589778 2023

  3. [3]

    Hare, Jan Hidders, Victor E

    Renzo Angles, Angela Bonifati, Stefania Dumbrava, George Fletcher, Keith W. Hare, Jan Hidders, Victor E. Lee, Bei Li, Leonid Libkin, Wim Martens, Filip Murlak, Josh Perryman, Ognjen Savković, Michael Schmidt, Juan Sequeda, Slawek Sta- worko, and Dominik Tomaszuk. 2021. PG-Keys: Keys for Property Graphs. In International Conference on Management of Data (S...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Renzo Angles, Harsh Thakkar, and Dominik Tomaszuk. 2020. Mapping RDF databases to property graph databases. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 86091–86110

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bart Bogaerts and Maxime Jakubowski. 2021. Fixpoint Semantics for Recursive SHACL. In International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Vol. 345. 41–47. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.345.14

    doi:10.4204/eptcs.345.14 2021

  6. [6]

    Bart Bogaerts, Maxime Jakubowski, and Jan Van den Bussche. 2022. SHACL: A Description Logic in Disguise. InLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR). Springer, 75–88. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_7

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_7 2022

  7. [7]

    Bart Bogaerts, Maxime Jakubowski, and Jan Van den Bussche. 2024. Expres- siveness of SHACL Features and Extensions for Full Equality and Disjointness Tests. Logical Methods in Computer Science Volume 20, Issue 1 (Feb. 2024). doi:10.46298/lmcs-20(1:16)2024

    work page doi:10.46298/lmcs-20(1:16)2024 2024

  8. [8]

    Labra Gayo, and Eric G

    Iovka Boneva, Jose E. Labra Gayo, and Eric G. Prud’hommeaux. 2017. Seman- tics and Validation of Shapes Schemas for RDF. In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Springer, 104–120

    work page 2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Angela Bonifati, George H. L. Fletcher, Hannes Voigt, and Nikolay Yakovets

  2. [10]

    Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Eve Maler, and François Yergeau

  3. [11]

    Carroll, Christian Bizer, Pat Hayes, and Patrick Stickler

    Jeremy J. Carroll, Christian Bizer, Pat Hayes, and Patrick Stickler. 2005. Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics 3, 4 (2005), 247–267. doi:10.1016/j.websem. 2005.09.001

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Reutter, and Ognjen Savkovic

    Julien Corman, Fernando Florenzano, Juan L. Reutter, and Ognjen Savkovic. 2019. Validating Shacl Constraints over a SPARQL Endpoint. In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Vol. 11778. Springer, 145–163. doi:10.1007/978-3-030- 30793-6_9

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Reutter, and Ognjen Savković

    Julien Corman, Juan L. Reutter, and Ognjen Savković. 2018. Semantics and Validation of Recursive SHACL. InInternational Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Springer, 318–336

    2018

  6. [14]

    Cyganiak, D

    R. Cyganiak, D. Wood, and M. Lanthaler. 2014. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11- concepts-20140225/

    2014

  7. [15]

    Jos De Bruijn, Rubén Lara, Axel Polleres, and Dieter Fensel. 2005. OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual modeling and reasoning for the Semantic Web. In International conference on World Wide Web (WWW) . 623–632

    2005

  8. [16]

    Thomas Delva, Anastasia Dimou, Maxime Jakubowski, and Jan Van den Bussche

  9. [17]

    Michael Dyck, Jonathan Robie, and Josh Spiegel. 2017. XML Path Language (XPath) 3.1. W3C Recommendation. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC- xpath-31-20170321/

    2017

  10. [18]

    Nicolas Ferranti, Jairo Francisco de Souza, Shqiponja Ahmetaj, and Axel Polleres

  11. [19]

    Shudi (Sandy) Gao, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Henry S. Thompson, Noah Mendel- sohn, David Beech, and Murray Maloney. 2012. W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures . Technical Report. World Wide Web Con- sortium

    2012

  12. [20]

    Olaf Hartig. 2014. Reconciliation of RDF* and Property Graphs. CoRR abs/1409.3288 (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3288

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Daniel Hernández, Aidan Hogan, and Markus Krötzsch. 2015. Reifying RDF: What Works Well With Wikidata?. InInternational Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, Vol. 1457. 32–47. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1457/ SSWS2015_paper3.pdf

    2015

  14. [22]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2020. ISO/IEC 19757-3:2020 In- formation technology – Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) – Part 3: Rule-based validation using Schematron . Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    2020

  15. [23]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2024. ISO/IEC 39075:2024 In- formation technology – Database languages – GQL . Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH

    2024

  16. [24]

    Maxime Jakubowski. 2024. Shapes Constraint Language: Formalization, Expres- siveness, and Provenance . Ph. D. Dissertation. Universiteit Hasselt and Vrije Universiteit Brussel

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gregg Kellogg, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Olaf Hartig, and Andy Seaborne

  18. [26]

    Hendler, and Kingsley Idehen

    Holger Knublauch, James A. Hendler, and Kingsley Idehen. 2011.SPIN — Overview and Motivation. Technical Report. World Wide Web Consortium

    2011

  19. [27]

    Knublauch and D

    H. Knublauch and D. Kontokostas. 2017. Shapes constraint language (SHACL). W3C Recommendation. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

    2017

  20. [28]

    Jose Emilio Labra Gayo. 2022. WShEx: A language to describe and validate Wikibase entities. In Wikidata Workshop. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3262/paper3. pdf

    2022

  21. [29]

    Jose Emilio Labra Gayo. 2024. Extending Shape Expressions for different types of knowledge graphs. In Workshop on Data Quality meets Machine Learning and Knowledge Graphs

    2024

  22. [30]

    W3C Working Draft

    RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Syntax . W3C Working Draft. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/WD-rdf12-concepts-20240822/

    2024

  23. [31]

    Knublauch, and D

    Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, H. Knublauch, and D. Kontokostas. 2024. SHACL Test Suite and Implementation Report . W3C Document. https://w3c.github.io/data- shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/

    2024

  24. [32]

    Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, Eric Prud’hommeaux, Iovka Boneva, and Dimitris Kontokostas. 2017. Validating RDF Data . Morgan & Claypool Publishers. doi:10.2200/S00786ED1V01Y201707WBE016

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Ora Lassila, Michael Schmidt, Olaf Hartig, Brad Bebee, Dave Bechberger, Willem Broekema, Ankesh Khandelwal, Kelvin Lawrence, Carlos Manuel Lopez Enriquez, Ronak Sharda, et al. 2023. The OneGraph vision: Challenges of breaking the graph model lock-in 1. Semantic Web 14, 1 (2023...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Leinberger, P

    M. Leinberger, P. Seifer, T. Rienstra, R. Lämmel, and S. Staab. 2020. Deciding SHACL Shape Containment through Description Logics Reasoning. In Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Springer, 366–383

    2020

  27. [35]

    Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, Herminio García-González, Daniel Fernández-Alvarez, and Eric Prud’hommeaux. 2019. Challenges in RDF Validation. In Current Trends in Semantic Web Technologies: Theory and Practice . Springer, 121–151. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-06149-4_6

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Vinh Nguyen, Olivier Bodenreider, and Amit P. Sheth. 2014. Don’t like RDF reification? Making statements about statements using singleton property. In International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) . ACM, 759–770. doi:10.1145/ 2566486.2567973

    2014

  29. [37]

    Mikael Nilsson. 2008. Description Set Profiles: A constraint language for Dublin Core Application Profiles. Technical Report. Dublin Core

    2008

  30. [38]

    Cem Okulmus and Mantas Šimkus. 2024. SHACL Validation under the Well- founded Semantics. In Proc. of KR 2024. doi:10.24963/KR.2024/52

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Paolo Pareti and George Konstantinidis. 2021. A Review of SHACL: From Data Validation to Schema Reasoning for RDF Graphs. In Reasoning Web (RW). Springer, 115–144. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95481-9_6

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Wim Martens, Frank Neven, Matthias Niewerth, and Thomas Schwentick. 2017. BonXai: Combining the Simplicity of DTD with the Expressiveness of XML Schema. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 42, 3 (2017), 15:1–15:42. doi:10.1145/3105960

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Paolo Pareti, George Konstantinidis, Fabio Mogavero, and Timothy J. Norman

  34. [42]

    2017.ShapeMap Structure and Language

    Eric Prud’hommeaux and Thomas Baker. 2017.ShapeMap Structure and Language. W3C Draft Community Group Report. W3C. http://shex.io/shape-map/

    2017

  35. [43]

    Eric Prud’hommeaux, Iovka Boneva, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, and Gregg Kellog

  36. [44]

    Eric Prud’hommeaux, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, and Harold Solbrig. 2014. Shape expressions: an RDF validation and transformation language. In International Conference on Semantic Systems (SEM). ACM, 32–40. doi:10.1145/2660517.2660523

    2014

  37. [45]

    Paolo Pareti, George Konstantinidis, and Fabio Mogavero. 2022. Satisfiability and Containment of Recursive SHACL. JWS 74 (2022), 100721:1–24

    2022

  38. [46]

    Arthur Ryman. 2014. Resource Shape 2.0. Technical Report. World Wide Web Consortium

    2014

  39. [47]

    Aref, Marcelo Arenas, Maciej Besta, Peter A

    Sherif Sakr, Angela Bonifati, Hannes Voigt, Alexandru Iosup, Khaled Ammar, Renzo Angles, Walid G. Aref, Marcelo Arenas, Maciej Besta, Peter A. Boncz, Khuzaima Daudjee, Emanuele Della Valle, Stefania Dumbrava, Olaf Hartig, Bern- hard Haslhofer, Tim Hegeman, Jan Hidders, Katja H...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Philipp Seifer, Ralf Lämmel, and Steffen Staab. 2021. ProGS: Property Graph Shapes Language. In The Semantic Web – ISWC 2021 . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 392–409

    2021

  41. [49]

    Evren Sirin. 2010. Data validation with OWL integrity constraints. In Interna- tional Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR) . Springer, 18–22

    2010

  42. [50]

    Prud’hommeaux, and Harold R

    Slawek Staworko, Iovka Boneva, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, Samuel Hym, Eric G. Prud’hommeaux, and Harold R. Solbrig. 2015. Complexity and Expressiveness of ShEx for RDF. In International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT) . 195–211. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2015.195

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Dominik Tomaszuk. 2017. RDF validation: A brief survey. In International Con- ference Beyond Databases, Architectures and Structures. Towards Efficient Solutions for Data Analysis and Knowledge Representation (BDAS) . Springer, 344–355

    2017

  44. [52]

    Kashif Rabbani, Matteo Lissandrini, and Katja Hose. 2023. Extraction of Validating Shapes from very large Knowledge Graphs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 5 (2023), 1023–

    2023

  45. [60]

    target declarations

    Domagoj Vrgoč, Carlos Rojas, Renzo Angles, Marcelo Arenas, Diego Arroyuelo, Carlos Buil-Aranda, Aidan Hogan, Gonzalo Navarro, Cristian Riveros, and Juan Romero. 2023. MillenniumDB: An Open-Source Graph Database System. Data Intelligence (06 2023), 1–39. doi:10.1162/dint_a_0020...

    2023 doi

  46. [61]

    Since (𝑑′ 1,𝑑′

    ∈ G1. Since (𝑑′ 1,𝑑′

  47. [62]

    By the definition of 𝑅,𝑑2 = 𝑐 and thus (𝑑2,𝑑′ 2)∈ J𝑝KG2

    ∈𝑅, we have that(𝑐,𝑝,𝑑 ′ 2)∈G 2. By the definition of 𝑅,𝑑2 = 𝑐 and thus (𝑑2,𝑑′ 2)∈ J𝑝KG2. The other direction is symmetric. (ii) 𝜋 =𝑘 for some key𝑘. Then trivially J𝑘KG1 = J𝑘KG2 =∅ by the definition of(𝑐,𝑛)-neighborhoods and the claim follows. (iii) The remaining cases for 𝜋 =...

    2023

  48. [1032]

    doi:10.14778/3579075.3579078

  49. [2008]

    Technical Report

    Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) . Technical Report. World Wide Web Consortium

  50. [2018]

    Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    Querying Graphs . Morgan & Claypool Publishers. doi:10.2200/ S00873ED1V01Y201808DTM051

  51. [2019]

    W3C Community Group Report

    Shape Expressions Language 2.1 . W3C Community Group Report. W3C. http://shex.io/shex-semantics/

  52. [2020]

    In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC)

    SHACL Satisfiability and Containment. In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC). Springer, 474–493

  53. [2023]

    In International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT)

    Data Provenance for SHACL. In International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT). OpenProceedings.org, 285–297. doi:10.48786/edbt. 2023.23

    2023 doi

  54. [2024]

    Semantic Web (2024)

    Formalizing and Validating Wikidata’s Property Constraints using SHACL and SPARQL. Semantic Web (2024). doi:10.3233/SW-243611

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.