Re: using classes to control constraints

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-02-07 06:44-0800]
> In a discussion about the LDOM Primer
> on 02/07/2015 01:58 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> [...]
> > "This instance passes/fails this shape" is quite clear. Adding a type arc
> > is effectively a non-starter for this group; there are too many people
> > who see that is hampering re-usability of the data.
> 
> Do you mean to say that there is no chance that any prominent example of
> constraints working off types will pass muster?
> 
> 
> I am very strongly in favour of having shapes be different from RDFS classes
> but I also very strongly believe that a common situation is that constraints
> are triggered from class membership.  This common situation should be
> prominent in the working group's documents.

I'm skeptical that it's a common occurance in sensible modeling, but
I'm certainly happy to be shown otherwise. Its possible that our
disagreement stems from different starting conditions. Here are mine:

  Much of the value of RDF stems from "serendipitous reuse".

  The prominent examples should use the core shapes language.

  Physical laws like area aren't typical of business logic.


> peter
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 15:05:29 UTC