Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

On 11/25/2014 10:22 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-11-25 16:20-0800]
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Three messages "up" in this thread, I was arguing just that. See
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/20141119111430.GB24640@w3.org> (attached).
>
> I agree re "situational". As a counter example, the FOAF ontology
> *could* say that foaf:mbox had a cardinality of one, but that would
> needlessly restrict its usage. (At TPAC, Tantek beat me up about
> having cardinalities attached to vocabulary definitions. After a sound
> drubbing, I managed to explain that he was beating up the wrong guy.)
>
>
>> peter
>


I don't see in that message that you are arguing for either true globality, 
that all users of RDF commit to all constraints, or even mention globality, 
that all users of something like foaf:mailbox commit to all constraints that 
mention foaf:mailbox.

Note that I'm not stating that no one has argued that constraints that are 
part of an ontology (if this is possible) must be in force for all users of 
that ontology.  I would even argue for this.  I'm not even stating that no one 
has argued constraints that are part of an ontology (if this is possible) 
must be in force for all users of vocabulary defined in that ontology.  I, 
however, argue against this, just like I argue against vocabulary mention 
requiring ontology use.


Why do I argue against vocabulary mention requiring ontology use?  Consider 
DBpedia.  The DBpedia ontology has many problems, including incorrect 
subClassOf relationships.  It should be possible to use the DBpedia class 
vocabulary, and even the entire DBpedia graph, with committing to the DBpedia 
ontology.


peter

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 10:23:37 UTC