Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class

On 2/9/2015 1:42, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2015 11:48 PM, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com 
> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Another angle on the important classes/shapes discussion. To me, the 
> term shape does not necessarily describe an entity, but is better used 
> as a relationship:
> >
> >     :hasShape(?resource, ?class) : boolean
> >
> > or as a "magic property":
> >
> >     ?resource :hasShape ?class .
>
> Is this substantially different from the way oslc uses instanceShape?
>

The second syntax above is meant to be interpreted as a "magic property" 
that many SPARQL engines support - a dynamically computed "property 
function"

https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/library-propfunc.html

(I probably should not have mentioned this syntax as it is not part of 
the SPARQL standard and may just be a distraction for this discussion.)

So: not asserted. Also, oslc:instanceShape points at a ResourceShape, 
while the above would point at a class that plays the role of a shape.

Holger