Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

<http://dumontierlab.com>

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> 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 ex:Issue subClassOf ex:IssueShape, will an instance of ex:Issue not
also be an instance of ex:IssueShape - without validation - or does this
not really matter?


>
>> 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
>
>
>