Re: using classes to control constraints

• From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 07:35:39 +1000
• To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <54D6852B.4070003@topquadrant.com>

On 2/8/15 12:44 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I am very strongly in favour of having shapes be different from RDFS 
> classes

Hi Peter, would you mind explaining your statement above? Your original 
proposal to the WG was OWL Closed World, which re-interprets 
restrictions with closed world meaning:

     ex:Class
         a owl:Class ;
         rdfs:subClassOf [
             a owl:Restriction ;
             owl:onProperty ex:property ;
             owl:minCardinality 1 ;
         ] .

The equivalent in LDOM is:

     ex:Class
         a owl:Class ;
         ldom:property [
             a ldom:PropertyConstraint ;
             ldom:predicate ex:property ;
             ldom:minCount 1 ;
         ] .

Where do these approaches differ? If you would not accept the second 
syntax, do you have any other syntax than OWL that you would accept?

Thanks
Holger

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 21:36:12 UTC