Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

I'm still wondering what you think it means to decouple shapes and classes. 
The first motivation you provide is supported by both SPIN and OWL 
constraints.  I can't figure out what custom properties have to do with 
classes, or constraints, or shapes.  The behaviour you appear to be looking 
for in your second paragraph is also supported by both SPIN and OWL constraints.

I had thought that this was ironed out at the Face-to-Face, but I guess not.


On 11/05/2014 01:47 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> There are a few motivations for decoupling shapes and classes. One is that
> the creation shape may be different than the update shape. Another has to
> do with custom properties. I'll write up the following in the wiki.
> OSLC supports an open content model for resources. It is common for tools
> to add their own custom properties, and for projects within a tool to have
> different user-defined properties. For example, consider a bug tracking
> tool. Project A may add a custom property foo and project B may add bar.
> All projects use the same RDF type for bug resources, e.g.
> oslc_cm:ChangeRequest. However, the shape for resources in project A
> differs for the shape for project B.
> _________________________________________________________
> Arthur Ryman
> Chief Data Officer
> SWG | Rational
> 905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
> IBM InterConnect 2015

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 22:27:45 UTC