Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

On 4/24/2015 11:04, Michel Dumontier wrote:
> right, i'm so used to OWL classification, that's how i formulated it 
> to make sense initially. but in the approach you're suggesting now, 
> one asserts that all instances of ex:Issue are instances of 
> ex:IssueShape, and you check that they satisfy the constraints - 
> throwing an error if not.  The worry I have is that if you just have a 
> simple SPARQL query you trivially "know" that every instance of 
> ex:Issue is an instance of ex:IssueShape.

Sorry I cannot follow. Where does the SPARQL query come into play and 
why is there a worry?

>
> if this inheritance behavior is similarly undesirable, then i don't 
> see how you can't keep shapes and classes from being naturally 
> disjoint different...

Sorry, I cannot claim that I understand what you are trying to explain. 
You wanted ex:IssueShape rdfs:subClassOf ex:Issue. I said then you need 
to instantiate ex:IssueShape to activate constraint checking. I did not 
understand what you intended to achieve by subclassing ex:Issue.

Thanks for any clarification.
Holger

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 01:44:38 UTC