- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:35:07 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
So RDF classes are not shapes, and neither are OWL classes. But why then does https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Resource_Shape_Association say that classes are shapes? peter On 12/12/2014 03:11 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > This depends on how you define the term Shape. To me, a Shape is a group of > connected constraints, so if a class has no constraints then it is not really > a Shape (unless you include the unconstrained Shape to be a Shape too). > > Holger > > > On 12/13/14, 9:02 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> But are all classes shapes? >> >> peter >> >> >> On 12/12/2014 02:52 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> >>> On 12/13/14, 3:40 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>> If "Shape" is more general than "Class", shouldn't all classes be shapes? >>> >>> Some classes are just named entities without any constraints. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> > >
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 23:35:39 UTC