Re: fundamental issues

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 2/14/15 9:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>> The question is only sensible if one already assumes RDFS or OWL
>>> >semantics. Outside of RDFS/OWL semantics, resources can do all these
>>> >things without being classes.
>>>
>> OK, so replace RDF classes with "RDF types in RDF and RDFS classes in
>> RDFS".  The point is whether documents will contain triples that use
>> shapes
>> where there are now RDF type or RDFS classes.
>>
>>
>
> If instance data will use shapes where they now use RDF, how would you
> fulfill the requirements implied in User Story #4 [1] where the same node
> in a graph can serve multiple roles? Or in general how do you address
> re-usability of your data in different contexts?
>

Shapes does not solve this problem, maybe postpone it a bit [1] until
when/if they get further adopted. In the same way one can use different
"shapes" at different contexts, one can use different class constraints at
different contexts.

[1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0198.html


>
> kc
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_
> Issue_repository
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas