Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

On 11/26/2014 10:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 02:14 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [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?

In this case I was referring to "global" in the sense of publishing a 
model with semantics under the assumption that anyone who wants to use 
this model correctly should follow the invariants. I was not referring 
to the topic of class attachment, but on how to package constraints in 
graphs.

HTH
Holger

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 00:28:09 UTC