- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:44:51 -0400
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Richard, I am not familiar with the term "punning" in this context. Have you got a reference? Thx. -- Arthur On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:14 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: SHACL Spec > > Some people want to apply different shapes to the same class. > Some peope want to apply shapes to data that doesn't include type statements. > Some people want to associate shapes directly with class definitions. > Some people want to “inherit” shapes down existing class hierarchies. > Some people want to “specialise” shapes where there are no existing class hierarchies. > Some people don't want shapes to have anything to do with classes at all to avoid reinventing RDFS, badly. > > No proposal seems to satisfy all people. > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:45:19 UTC