- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:42:48 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi Arthur, I am looking forward to seeing this worked out as a specific example. Currently I don't see why named graphs would not cover your use cases. This topic is crucial to discuss exhaustively because it sits at the very foundation of the differences between ShEx/Resource Shapes and OWL/SPIN. Holger On 11/6/2014 7:47, 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 23:45:23 UTC