Re: Can Shapes always be Classes?

On Nov 22, 2014 1:21 AM, "Holger Knublauch" <> wrote:
> On 11/21/14, 8:29 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>> Thank you for the details Holger, SPIN it is more clear now to me.
>> I would like to give input to this WG on how we deal this with RDFUnit
in case it is of interest.
>> RDFUnit does this the opposite way of SPIN. Instead of assigning
constraints to classes or properties, we decorate (associate)  constraints
with classes, properties, ontologies, vocabularies, RDF graphs or
> Well, triples are bidirectional, so calling this "the opposite way of
SPIN" is IMHO too strong.

Agreed, 'opposite way' referred to the direction, please replace it to
'inverse relation'.

> And of course it would be straight-forward to extend SPIN with a couple
of properties to inform an execution engine about which constraints to run,
if people find that helpful. Instead of making it appear the "opposite" I'd
encourage you to think about the commonalities and how to harvest and merge
the best ideas from all approaches.

I already mentioned (in the previous public list) that RDFUnit is closer to
SPIN than all the other proposals. There are many differences in the
semantics and workflow but still closer. Apart from the wrong choice of
wording, this is all I did, "give input to this WG on how we deal this with
RDFUnit in case it is of interest".


> Holger

Received on Saturday, 22 November 2014 06:18:42 UTC