Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM)

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 01/29/2015 08:24:05 PM:

> this conflict of terminology is the main issue. Whether you use 
> ldom:Shape or rdfs:Class and ldom:shape or rdf:type is from an 
> algorithm's point of view really just another URI. In fact I just 
> slightly generalized the LDOM algorithm description here:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/LDOM_Algorithm
> 
> and it works exactly the same way, no matter what URIs you use for those 

> roles. This tells me that our seemingly different worlds are in fact 
> almost identical.

Great!

> I believe we need both - the ability to create independent shapes and OO 

> patterns. One main motivation here is backwards compatibility so that 
> there is an organic way for people to reuse their instance data without 
> being forced to use both rdf:type and ldom:shape/oslc:instanceShape. 
> There are many other reasons. You state elsewhere that you would have 
> used OWL Closed World, so you don't seem to have had issues with reusing 

> the concept of classes in the past. If we can agree on that middle 
> ground, then I think we have a productive way forward.

Yes, OWL with Closed World Assumption AND Unique Naming Assumption would 
have satisfied OSLC use cases. I believe that the bulk of OSLC Resource 
Shapes requirements could be expressed that way. We had no desire to 
invent core RDF standards. However, we also did not want to use existing 
W3C RDF standards incorrectly.

That being said, this WG should not impose a strictly OO view of RDF. The 
output of this WG should be applicable to any valid RDF.

-- Arthur Ryman

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 20:32:15 UTC