Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I do not believe that either of these requirements relies on rdf:type to
"link instances with shapes".  They do, of course, require some connection
between a class and a shape, but that is different.

peter


On 04/28/2015 05:05 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 4/29/2015 10:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQCHIAAoJECjN6+QThfjzYcMIAJMvodzBZn1XR2ZVWKNMWyIf
oyvgp59hCUEOJZhOyBEPZDYUnJnjgaTg3ROClh37LODBrJGpDVYnrHbdD4TjSnNo
XHJv6Z32qX4fEOzUe+/lRkKHEBTmZusfqe6rz53lN4WseHfAlP/y4JFauq2F0upW
DLeV7BnyWIq350zi2yWvA6yTpZzMnqaIfQEVFq2XbE256x5tRy280pRdXzb6D43U
Uuv5WheeVTfYixUuw7KlKj8vuELlXSoBAsVrGiCMwPYDA6lXYE2UCC85dAMqqsSQ
kybU2GNFNM55D3OGIm2jigAysJimjXceWsP11iQbVXj7hgz+H8dnAVz/JFSG6gU=
=3qOF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 00:12:21 UTC