Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

On 4/24/15 11:58 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto: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?
>
Yes it would count as an instance of ex:IssueShape too, but I don't see 
a problem with that. When you define an owl:Restriction via 
rdfs:subClassOf, then the instances of the main class also become 
implicit instances of the Restriction.

Holger