Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class

On Feb 5, 2015 11:48 PM, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> 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 .

Is this substantially different from the way oslc uses instanceShape?

> *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
>
>