- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:08:45 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I suppose that the working group could exclude rdfs:domain and rdfs:range from the RDF graphs that it considers to be acceptable, just as OWL DL excluded certain RDF graphs. For OWL DL that was to achieve decidability and I don't see an equivalent need here. peter On 02/12/2015 04:03 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 2/13/2015 8:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> Is the working group producing a solution tailored for RDF data, where >> RDF graphs and rdf:type are important; for RDFS data, where >> rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:domain, and rdfs:range are >> also important; for Linked Data, where dereferencing and interlinking >> is important; or for services data, where brevity may be important? >> >> 2. Shapes and Classes >> >> Are shapes RDF classes, i.e., should shapes be the object of rdf:tyoe >> triples, participate in rdfs:subClassOf relationships, and be the >> object of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range triples? > > In both points you seem to assume that if we use rdfs:subClassOf then we > also must use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. Could you clarify? I would > assume it is possible to use parts of the RDFS namespace without sucking > in all dependencies, assuming we clarify that situation in the beginning > of the specification. > > Thanks, Holger > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3Wq9AAoJECjN6+QThfjzHdkH/jWQuUMUcANjteDMBs8wIFVs zXwI8uE+33W5pHICt2Pa3cWA7tHKMMz9MHvHSyIkjVXekBoQm3DriS9BPdiQizPL RyPJFqqLW0bCoLmdFYcTyG81I8pkq/Tq+GCs2reBlupKdU7jcfzHav5qa40/RT3R 7nIamVW0kiuuB29mnjK7gtdZkLsEH8+rHlIL8q/Aihm3VMX17L2omgU53PFzDNle fqHAzowpEC4h2kPyBTSP9HNP2yIgXEo37drBT4uwVo4Grcc11RUr3qJ8n7BLK6KO IX2NOqLZH33aR3gSSqg30MYPEzI2/jOWU+r4M8Z04LtqUMlH49yqiRwX1XABAjo= =DdNU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 03:09:14 UTC