- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:40:06 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
If "Shape" is more general than "Class", shouldn't all classes be shapes? peter On 12/11/2014 12:40 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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 Friday, 12 December 2014 17:40:37 UTC