Re: using classes to control constraints

It is certainly a very common occurrence for every one of our customers. They do this as a matter of fact without any influence from TopQuadrant.

We would formally object to a standard that didn't provide these customers with such option.

Irene.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-02-07 06:44-0800]
>> In a discussion about the LDOM Primer
>>> on 02/07/2015 01:58 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> "This instance passes/fails this shape" is quite clear. Adding a type arc
>>> is effectively a non-starter for this group; there are too many people
>>> who see that is hampering re-usability of the data.
>> 
>> Do you mean to say that there is no chance that any prominent example of
>> constraints working off types will pass muster?
>> 
>> 
>> I am very strongly in favour of having shapes be different from RDFS classes
>> but I also very strongly believe that a common situation is that constraints
>> are triggered from class membership.  This common situation should be
>> prominent in the working group's documents.
> 
> I'm skeptical that it's a common occurance in sensible modeling, but
> I'm certainly happy to be shown otherwise. Its possible that our
> disagreement stems from different starting conditions. Here are mine:
> 
>  Much of the value of RDF stems from "serendipitous reuse".
> 
>  The prominent examples should use the core shapes language.
> 
>  Physical laws like area aren't typical of business logic.
> 
> 
>> peter
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> 
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
> 
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
>

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 19:27:27 UTC