- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:55:24 -0500
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 12/19/2014 01:16:01 PM: > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> > To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> > Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> > Date: 12/19/2014 01:16 PM > Subject: Re: shapes as classes > > The implicit connection here appears to be outside the scope of RDF. If this > connection is a vital part of the story, then I don't think that thestory is > in scope of the working group. > > peter An RDF graph is not required to be connected. A shape language should be applicable to general RDF graphs, not just connected ones. Disconnected RDF graphs arise in real applications. -- Arthur
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 18:55:59 UTC