Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <> [2014-11-12 15:13-0800]
> On 11/12/2014 02:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> >
> >On 11/13/14, 8:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>RDFS is part of the RDF spec, so we do not have to go beyond the RDF spec to
> >>get the benefits of RDFS.
> >
> >Which benefits do you mean? Inferencing?
> >
> >(In general I admit I often find your statements enigmatic. It's often unclear
> >to me what solution you are proposing).
> Well, then I'm having the effect I want.
> At this point I'm not advocating or even proposing a solution.  I
> am, however, trying to tease out just what others are advocating or
> proposing and pointing out statements that are not correct.
> The statement here was that RDFS is not part of the RDF spec.
> That's not true.  To get the benefits of RDFS (any maybe I should
> have said, if any) you don't need to go beyond the RDF spec.

We need (relatively non-controversial) labels to say that we do or do
not expect a shape definition to include RDFS inferencing (not
addressing fragments thereof at this point). If we are careful not to
say "RDF spec" can we use "graph entailment" and "RDFS entailment"?

> I do also believe that RDFS has benefits, namely its notions of a
> class and property hierarchy and domains and ranges on properties.
> (I'm not saying that RDFS is the best ontology language, or even a
> very good one, but RDFS does provide some interesting capabilities.)
> >Holger
> peter


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 07:09:31 UTC