Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

I didn't say that "link instances with shapes" must rely on rdf:type 
*only*. Of course it could also be a path expression 
rdf:type/sh:classShape as has been proposed elsewhere. This is certainly 
a possibility, e.g.

ex:MyClass
     sh:classShape [
         sh:property [ ... ] ;
         sh:constraint [ ... ]
     ] .

but I believe the "syntactic sugar" of being able to use classes as 
shapes directly will be important for the acceptance of this language:

ex:MyClass
     sh:property [ ... ] ;
     sh:constraint [ ... ]  .

I was merely reacting to Arthur's statement that my proposal would 
violate existing agreements. I don't believe it does. And I remain open 
to adjusting the draft if the WG decides on a level of indirection. My 
draft clearly marks this issue as unresolved.

Holger


On 4/29/2015 10:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----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 00:24:51 UTC