- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:37:07 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Thanks, these edits look good to me. Holger On 12/17/2014 3:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 23:40:10 UTC