Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

On 11/25/2014 02:14 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Holger Knublauch <> [2014-11-19 22:36+1000]
>>                                      For the majority of use cases
>> you would end up with Shape objects that are mirroring classes,
> I disagree that the majority of shapes would be global invariants.
> But regardless, the fact that we don't want to write off the other use
> cases implies that we must not require a model which forces one to
> retract one schema when looking at another when both should be associated
> with particular interfaces.

What does "global invariant" mean here?

There is no way that constraints can be truly global, i.e., that every use of 
RDF has to include them all.  I don't see anyone arguing that the mere use of 
a class requires the use of all constraints associated with that class, which 
perhaps could be considered to be akin to a global invariant.  All other 
setups for constraints appear to be situational, i.e., not global.


Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 00:20:51 UTC