- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:41:47 -0700
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
On 08/07/2014 06:33 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-08-07 17:41-0700] >> >> >> On 08/07/2014 05:24 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2014 12:44 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com >>> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, I did present what I thought was a good neutral set of deliverables, >>> namely [...] >>>> >>>> 3. OPTIONAL A specification of how shape verification interacts with >>>> inference. >>> >>> I think this one feel off radar. Did you see any support for this? >> >> Well, it was supposed to be a better version of the normalization requirement. > > I think I'm not getting the connection. I'd expect that inference > would allow one to say that e.g. a myco:Employee is subclass of a > foaf:Person before enforcing a rule that required the foaf:Person arc > on employee records. I thought that normalization was about > predictably ordering the arcs. Is my model wrong, or perhaps one > conversationed morphed into the other? More importantly to my task at > hand, should I continue to track this? I had thought that the normalization deliverable was to handle RDF or RDFS inference. I couldn't imagine any other use for normalization as related to shape checking. >>>> 4. OPTIONAL A compact, human-readable syntax for expressing shapes. >>>> >>>> peter peter
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 01:42:17 UTC