Re: using classes to control constraints

Sent too quickly. Just to be clear - my comment was in response to

"I'm skeptical that it's a common occurance in sensible modeling, but
> 
> I'm certainly happy to be shown otherwise. "

As for the usage numbers, I would say that this holds for 90+% of TopBraid users and we have thousands of individual users.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> It is certainly a very common occurrence for every one of our customers. They do this as a matter of fact without any influence from TopQuadrant.
> 
> We would formally object to a standard that didn't provide these customers with such option.
> 
> Irene.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> * 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.
>>