# Deciding SHACL Shape Containment through Description Logics Reasoning (Extended Version)

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13603 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.13603/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [A Review of SHACL: From Data Validation to Schema Reasoning for RDF Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.01441/) (2021)
- [Satisfiability and Containment of Recursive SHACL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13063/) (2021)
- [Common Foundations for SHACL, ShEx, and PG-Schema](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01295/) (2025)
- [SHACL2FOL: An FOL Toolkit for SHACL Decision Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08018/) (2024)
- [Shape Fragments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11796/) (2021)
- [Representing Normative Regulations in OWL DL for Automated Compliance Checking Supported by Text Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05951/) (2025)
- [Static Analysis of Recursive SHACL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.02787/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) allows for formalizing constraints over RDF data graphs. A shape groups a set of constraints that may be fulfilled by nodes in the RDF graph. We investigate the problem of containment between SHACL shapes. One shape is contained in a second shape if every graph node meeting the constraints of the first shape also meets the constraints of the second. To decide shape containment, we map SHACL shape graphs into description logic axioms such that shape containment can be answered by description logic reasoning. We identify several, increasingly tight syntactic restrictions of SHACL for which this approach becomes sound and complete.