Re: shapes as classes

I think my write-up makes it pretty clear that shapes are not classes, 
but some classes are shapes. "Shape" is more general than "Class".

According to your definition in the glossary, a recognition condition 
defines a new named term. Shapes can be used anonymously, e.g. as a 
nested structure within another shape, and do not necessarily have to 
produce named terms.

I have likely misunderstood your point, but I am at this stage not sure 
what issue you have specifically. Also please feel free to edit the wiki 
page - I was definitely only creating a starting point and did not 
intend to speak on behalf of the whole group.

Thanks
Holger



On 12/12/14, 4:53 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I am uncomfortable with the group saying that shapes are RDF classes, 
> as in
>
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Resource_Shape_Association
>
> particular in conjunction with anything that implying that shapes 
> provide recognition conditions.  I think that this would put forward 
> the notion that the working group is advocating that RDF should be 
> extended to have recognition conditions on its classes.
>
>
> I say this even though OWL classes to provide recognition conditions, 
> and can be considered to be shapes.
>
> peter
>

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 20:41:04 UTC