- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:04:13 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
OK, I made some minor edits to fix up the terminology. peter On 12/12/2014 04:09 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 16 December 2014 17:04:46 UTC