- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:09:32 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Please feel free to edit the page and come up with a better wording. It was just a proposal. We can fight about words forever, without making progress. Holger On 12/13/14, 9:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 Saturday, 13 December 2014 00:10:06 UTC