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

• From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>
• Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 16:16:55 -0800
• To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CALcEXf4JX29-mS6-cB5tsF=ykscq8L1OdvSsdcPcECqo2sQHog@mail.gmail.com>

Holger,

> there is zero practical difference between
> the following options:
>
>     ex:Class
>         a owl:Class ;
>         rdfs:subClassOf [
>             a owl:Restriction ;
>             owl:onProperty ex:property ;
>             owl:minCardinality 1 ;
>         ] .
>
>     ex:Class
>         a owl:Class ;
>         ldom:property [
>             a ldom:PropertyConstraint ;
>             ldom:predicate ex:property ;
>             ldom:minCount 1 ;
>         ] .
>
> Holger

  is it not the case that (1) *entails* that every instance of
ex:Class has at least one relation ex:property to some unidentified
object of any type, whereas (2) should be used to check those
instances of ex:Class have at least one ex:property to one concrete
object?  will the shape in (2) trivially validate on an OWL axiom in
(1)?

m.

Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 00:17:45 UTC