Re: ISSUE-23: sh:ShapeClass?

Holger, this may be over my head code-wise, but it doesn't seem to 
explain why Peter's suggested method of associating a shape with an 
rdf:type (class) is not sufficient. Specifically, what is it that one 
cannot do if shapes are not classes?


On 4/29/15 7:34 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Such ShapeClasses would be instances of sh:Shape and rdfs:Class at the
> same time. In order to avoid the need to write down the superfluous
> sh:classShape triple pointing to itself, the engine would assume that
> this triple exists - a fairly small change to the algorithm. Introducing
> sh:ShapeClass would be similar to having owl:Class, which extends the
> rdfs:Class metaclass with additional properties. By having users
> instantiate the new metaclass they make a conscious choice that the URI
> of that class can also be used as a shape. The benefit is that we still
> have readable code with much fewer triples, and fewer people facepalming
> about the complexity of the trivial use cases - why introduce a separate
> sh:Shape when there is a one-to-one mapping anyway.

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:10:05 UTC