Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

On 4/29/2015 10:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I would like to see an explanation of which approved requirement relies on
> rdf:type to "link instances with shapes".

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Association_of_Class_with_Shape

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Selection_by_type

HTH
Holger


>
> peter
>
> On 04/28/2015 03:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Hi Arthur,
>>
>> On 4/29/2015 5:00, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>> Holger,
>>>
>>> Your proposal looks like a revival of a discussion we had months ago.
>> Yes I remember these long discussions, and I am aware some people are
>> tired of this topic.
>>
>>> Shapes and Classes are very different things. A Shape is a set of
>>> constraints on a graph. A Class has a set of member resources that
>>> define its extension. The group decided to keep these concepts
>>> separate.
>> Yes, they are conceptually different. But can you point me at a
>> "decision" by the WG that would make my proposal invalid?
>>
>>> You seem to be repeating the same arguments. What is different now? Why
>>> should the WG reverse its earlier position?
>> As discussed many times, the WG comprises of different camps. Some
>> people believe Shapes are all they need, others believe that it would be
>> foolish to ignore the existing structures and previous work related to
>> classes and replace it with a parallel universe. We have approved
>> requirements that rely on rdf:type to link instances with shapes. I would
>> appreciate if both sides try to understand each other. My proposal aims
>> at making both view points possible. People who prefer to stay in pure
>> Shapes can use sh:Shape + sh:nodeShape, while others can use rdf:type +
>> rdfs:Class. Yes we could completely separate sh:Shape and rdfs:Class, yet
>> I see more downsides than advantages of such a design. In particular,
>> cross-inheritance of constraints becomes messy if you have
>> rdfs:subClassOf + sh:extends.
>>
>> Instead of having philosophical discussions, I have opened this thread to
>> try to examine specific proposals, with specific metamodels. If someone
>> has better suggestions, then I would like to read details about them. As
>> this Class-vs-Shapes topic is very important to some people here, I
>> believe we have best chances with a proposal that allows both modeling
>> approaches to be used, and then let the users decide which design they
>> prefer in practice. It's a web-based standard after all.
>>
>> Thanks Holger
>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQB+6AAoJECjN6+QThfjzHisIALtwh8k13aRG0GcvYvBwZ2v7
> pJJex2+TPoMT1sRilubmFs3UNKr66HR15UN4IoZsrTuY1SkuVu6ZEoXSwnu7+TSI
> tR5SBTYM8YLdnWu8pI5eteTeGjm/5CzDChmhGwLcdFzhaWOS0d/kVrqSpM1mZsff
> SyuHUhK2NEFMfQ+vWorAa2ReMwlI0whUQ1byyCJoJA+CjCGA/MYEY/4KxW+o/ewX
> qFPJVYZcEZxkUgZQ6fC6Cinlq7ZNY565b9MlS2039+jdJZG9hKMlbym6sRrFtw/Y
> a9VdD8jmvb52bb5bW6utH1tXhTeZ2rX/xJ++qb1RsA1iROlU/TmLAjjYOoLJJnQ=
> =fqx/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 00:06:56 UTC