Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

On 11/25/14 4:20 PM, 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?


Actually, could I ask for a mundane definition of "global invariant", 
since I really don't know what this might mean. Could someone put it 
into everyday language?

Thanks,
kc

>
> 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.
>
> peter
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 00:37:07 UTC