Re: shapes as classes

The narrative for S35 says "There is no path from the acc:AccessContextList 
node to either of the acc:AccessContext nodes. There is an implicit 
containment relation of acc:AccessContext nodes in the acc:AccessContextList 
by virtue of these nodes being in the same information resource."  This 
implicit connection is not part of RDF.


peter


On 12/19/2014 06:01 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 04:11:57 UTC