- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:21:05 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 2/14/2015 8:01, Michel Dumontier wrote: > I don't agree that OO people will not understand how to deal with > shapes that place restrictions on other object or data patterns - > there's nothing complicated or bewildering about it. But from an RDF triples points of view, you end up with two RDF structures that basically do the same thing. When to use which, how to correlate one to another, why have a "Shape" for every "Class". These are all questions that will come up again and again. They increase the implementation cost. They increase the cognitive cost. We may end up with two parallel semantic webs. Your queries have to do more work. Classes are already well-established. If we have to add Shapes *as RDF triples* then there need to be good reasons for doing so. Holger
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 00:22:33 UTC