Re: shapes as classes

DC has at least one similar case, in use today. Can you, however, say 
what you mean by "some characteristic of two nodes"? What 
"characteristics" would put them out of scope?

kc

On 12/19/14 4:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> If the only connection is that they are in the same graph, then it might
> be in scope.  However, if there is some indication that the connection
> is somehow special because of the some characteristic of two nodes that
> are both in a particular graph, then I would say that this is out of scope.
>
> It appears to me that the latter is the case.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 12/19/2014 12:42 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 12/19/2014
>> 02:40:44 PM:
>>
>>> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>> To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>> Date: 12/19/2014 02:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: shapes as classes
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Peter,
>> I think this implicit connection is in scope because the concept of an
>> RDF
>> graph is within the scope of RDF. The implicit connection between the
>> nodes is a consequence of them being in the same RDF graph. A shape
>> language should let me describe a constraint such as "The graph must have
>> exactly one node of type acc:AccessContextList, and zero or nodes of type
>> acc:AccessContext."
>>
>> -- Arthur
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 02:02:15 UTC