Re: shapes and classes: different

Holger, the problem that I see in your examples is that there is way too 
much semantics. Also, you have assigned an rdf:type to each graph, thus 
the graphs are 1-2-1 with classes. We have a vocabulary that has no 
classes defined, and the IRIs are opaque. It looks like:

ex:ResourceA
    rdau:P60367 "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
    rdau:P60073 "1996" ;
    rdau:P60093 dctype:text ;
    rdau:P60434 <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79021164> ;
    rdau:P20006 ex:ResourceC .

That's not quite a valid example, but it will take a while to create 
something meaningful, and I would probably need help to create something 
that actually tests the use case of graphs vs. classes. But I do think 
that the example is already weighted toward the class decision.

kc

On 2/2/15 10:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 9:13, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> If you are instead asking for something in the middle, then this
>> middle is
>> as of yet undetermined.  My view is that the middle is something like:
>> 1/ classes are as in LDOM, i.e., RDFS classes plus constraints, and
>> 2/ shapes are as in ShExC, i.e., you can't assert membership in a shape.
>> In this particular middle the bug example cannot be handled by classes
>> because there is no typing and thus nothing to start the class-based
>> constraints whereas shapes plus OSLC-like controls work fine.  The same
>> analysis can be made for any use case that does not have explicit
>> rdf:type
>> triples in the data.
>
> As an attempt to have something that we can actually compare, I have
> started a wiki page
>
>      https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Classes_and_Shapes
>
> that tries to enumerate the various design options. The current LDOM is
> option A. Option B looks similar to Resource Shapes/ShEx to me, but I
> may be wrong.
>
> Can we use this outline to compare additional options? (Anyone please
> feel free to make edits).
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 14:57:33 UTC