- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 07:38:21 -0800
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- CC: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/05/2015 07:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Jose, > > I agree with *almost* everything in your email. I disagree with your > conclusion though. > >> On 5 Feb 2015, at 08:54, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> >> wrote: [...] > You make it sound like attaching shapes to classes is something that one > would only want to do in closed systems. I disagree with this. I expect > that ontologies designed for use in open systems will also include shapes > in their definitions. I know I would have liked to include some in > several ontologies that I’ve worked on. > >> - […] we should not force future systems to couple shapes with classes >> when they don't need to be coupled. > > We should also not force future systems to decouple shapes and classes > when they don’t need to be decoupled. > > Best, Richard How does one include anything in a class definition in RDF or RDFS? What is a class definition in RDF or RDFS? What does it mean to include a shape in a class definition? peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU045tAAoJECjN6+QThfjzO+UIAKXU6QiSrvGP30u9grf4QT2F oHgIplFv3odMdo/ypYk1l94Vxzk8aFXdxrvWcDMMNc3KBLAQVwnr/tCaW5i3kvj6 r1Fgcs7S7xRfOFUC9hVV5s5YarAdo2/T/HXilqryA5DPWW9CZuJGVii6WcgMr5zY FB1we2qXxkxsG0KC66YPxu/IpiYTDp1MC0/ho5hyRupLqSDZBBFjKg5Z3TRMb+jY azLgU9PUe1IcPp/2IHHRggAvFE+ng//+/VNyMsf4wjH5tdur99qLlkvi+7whbz+g 7ngjve7KsIa5e2ZmZ3XL8U+LyF660k5+PP/zlgVZhU3N+Jx4Zjx08+x6kY9ryo8= =/854 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 15:38:51 UTC