"shape" as a relationship, not a class

• From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:48:14 +1000
• To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <54D3F32E.2080105@topquadrant.com>

Another angle on the important classes/shapes discussion. To me, the 
term shape does not necessarily describe an entity, but is better used 
as a relationship:

     :hasShape(?resource, ?class) : boolean

or as a "magic property":

     ?resource :hasShape ?class .

*A resource has the shape of a class, if it fulfills all constraints 
attached to that class (regardless of its rdf:type triples)*. Classes 
are not only used to assert set membership (via rdf:type), but also to 
declare hypothetical sets of resources with similar characteristics. 
That's similar to how OWL uses owl:Classes.

I think that terminology would still allow us to talk about shapes with 
proper meaning, without having to duplicate and reinvent established 
concepts.

Holger

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 22:48:48 UTC