Re: shapes and classes: different

On 2/3/2015 9:13, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> If you are instead asking for something in the middle, then this middle is
> as of yet undetermined.  My view is that the middle is something like:
> 1/ classes are as in LDOM, i.e., RDFS classes plus constraints, and
> 2/ shapes are as in ShExC, i.e., you can't assert membership in a shape.
> In this particular middle the bug example cannot be handled by classes
> because there is no typing and thus nothing to start the class-based
> constraints whereas shapes plus OSLC-like controls work fine.  The same
> analysis can be made for any use case that does not have explicit rdf:type
> triples in the data.

As an attempt to have something that we can actually compare, I have 
started a wiki page

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Classes_and_Shapes

that tries to enumerate the various design options. The current LDOM is 
option A. Option B looks similar to Resource Shapes/ShEx to me, but I 
may be wrong.

Can we use this outline to compare additional options? (Anyone please 
feel free to make edits).

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 06:32:40 UTC