Re: shapes as classes

Sure, RDF graphs are not required to be connected.  The ones that I see are 
connected through classes, but that's certainly not a requirement, and both 
SPIN and OWL constraints can do reasonable things with RDF graphs that are not 
connected.

However, that's not the problem with S35 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S35:_Describe_disconnected_graphs

S35 talks about an implicit connection between acc:AcccessContext nodes and 
acc:AccessContextList nodes.  This implicit connection appears to me to be 
outside the scope of RDF.

peter


On 12/19/2014 10:55 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> "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 19:41:15 UTC