Re: shapes and classes: different

Hi Peter, All,

I am jumping back in at this e-mail because I think it contains a great idea.
On 26 Jan 2015, at 19:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> It is certainly the case that OWL classes have the characteristics of both
> shapes and classes because you can both assert that objects belong to OWL
> classes and provide precise conditions for belonging to OWL classes.
> However, it is possible to build a class system (e.g., RDFS) where classes
> are not shapes and a shape system (e.g., ShExC) where shapes are not classes.
> 
> Having shapes also be classes or classes also be shapes doesn't follow from
> the bare notions of shapes and classes.  It is instead a decision whose
> consequences need analysis.

Instead of discussing this the WG needs some data. As the WG is usecase
driven why don’t the shape proponents find a usecase that is not supportable by the class
story but where shapes work (e.g within the next two months). Then the class proponents
take that usecase and try to show that their class solution can tackle the problem.

If then shapes can do something classes can’t (that meets a usecase), then the standard should use shapes.
If not the question one becomes one of Usability and Understanding.
At which point a careful social experiment needs to be designed, to see what is really more understandable
(and for whom).

I.e. you should stop discussing for a while because you need more data before it becomes worthwhile to
really talk. Currently its to much opinion (mine included).

Regards,
Jerven
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/26/2015 08:12 AM, Jerven Tjalling Bolleman wrote:
>> I really can't help myself...
>> 
>> On 26/01/15 15:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: The most important
>> aspect of classes is that you state that objects belong to them.  If you
>> don't state that objects belong to X, X is not a class.
>> 
>> The most important aspect of shapes is that you provide conditions
>> stating precisely when an object belongs to them.   If you don't provide
>> conditions stating precisely when an object belongs to X, X is not a
>> shape.
>> 
>> Having shapes also be classes implies that you state that objects belong
>> to shapes.  Having classes also be shapes implies that you provide
>> recognition conditions for classes. Both situations are possible, but
>> both have consequences.
>>> Your word shape is my word owl:Class. Allowing class membership
>>> inference from recognition conditions is as normal as class member ship
>>> assertion directly in the data. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that
>>> I am having this argument with one of the OWL2 editors!
>> 
>>> Basically I am reading your response as class membership only inferred
>>> is "shape membership". Class membership asserted is not "shape
>>> membership". Or paraphrased: Shapes only allows triples with the
>>> shape:member predicate (IMO equivalent to rdf:type) to be inferred and
>>> not asserted.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> peter
>>> 
>> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUxoQPAAoJECjN6+QThfjzTmgH/jtfP5mku3QdlO7ZUqBUZAf/
> chUZ5eR67eGWlqeD2TbHfvBg3mkqfKarjmfxTi9KSOjxWzfUVablQuwWA0uFKx5K
> wtt6rut018kphmWMvjqMOn+pHc0jMgr6ahHtdQQYl17rk0bw6ExUAlC9lMiPu6Kj
> aaFRgPdszzREHD42KQOmRS2hr8wpDSgC5H2mYj2H+epJn7Yq75HJM7D+d+RC/2ei
> bIiHxtyicYL2CRmAr+75GJpcSg0tS2lQ8hkMJxMGHbo2YmGhj4qSJ+HPeNSftuc5
> /3mlKMM9gH+LlKK3bYzHuFHJeHAYuaQjILCePakqkA6GTmEf1gpTIEyxhjOY3xk=
> =i90c
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerven Bolleman                        Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics      Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1               Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58
1211 Geneve 4,
Switzerland     www.isb-sib.ch - www.uniprot.org
Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 21:23:08 UTC