Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] from Arthur Ryman on 2015-04-09 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2015)

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:33:56 -0400
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAApBiOna_iwor9SikJeKvFvtzFzf1Bib3rUc4_dhfd1t2Xi7Bg@mail.gmail.com>

Holger,

You wrote:
"Only in that situation my point is that the SHACL core language alone
would be a step backwards in the evolution of the semantic web space,
because it will cause a fragmentation of the market without adding
much that OWL didn't already have."

I disagree. There is no W3C standard for using OWL with closed world
and unique naming assumptions. That is why OSLC Resource Shapes was
created after consultation with OWL experts. It would therefore was a
good step forward if we had a W3C standard that was at least as
expressive as OSLC Resource Shapes. If you think OWL can provide that,
then you should propose a W3C standard based on OWL. Otherwise, let's
not continue to claim that just because many people think that OWL can
express constraints that it actually does.

-- Arthur

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 16:34:23 UTC