Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] from Richard Cyganiak on 2015-04-03 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2015)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:16:17 +0100
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F8B9F3A4-9308-4262-8445-7A3B8404C734@cyganiak.de>

> On 3 Apr 2015, at 11:25, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> 
> I am not too familiar with punning as well but, what if we made a distinction between e.g. sh:ClassShape and sh:ResourceShape (both subclasses of sh:Shape) and used punning only on sh:ClassShape?

Punning means you *can* name a class and a shape with a single IRI. It doesn’t mean you *must*.

Having two separate types of shapes, one to use in case you want to pun and one in case you don’t, doesn’t make any sense.

The point of punning is that you should be able to just gloss over the difference between the two constructs (classes and shapes here), and have everything Just Work anyway.

Richard

Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 11:16:42 UTC