- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:23:32 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't see this as a desirable feature for the output from the working group. In my view, the working group should pick some vocabulary/syntax for these features and stick to that vocabulary/syntax. peter On 02/10/2015 03:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > I have just pushed a new "meta" feature to the LDOM system vocabulary > that can be used to represent which properties shall be used to drive the > LDOM engine. This is an attempt to formalize and generalize the issue of > classes-vs-shapes into a solution that everyone could live with. > > Here are the details: > > https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shape_Selectors > > I believe this offers the maximum flexibility so that platforms can pick > which properties (such as oslc:instanceShape/oslc:classShape) they would > like to use. This approach allows applications to pick whether they want > backward-compatibility with RDFS classes or use stand-alone shapes, or > even both! > > Any feedback? > > Thanks, Holger > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU22XkAAoJECjN6+QThfjzG0IH/3CbZvBd9ATAAUY4/c6Tm5CF CGSXocGc6AvtE72khccOvxzABD9HxiOGcEFhm98PWYZR+En8nSrl1bvf/hV7UiJU yxezPuwwCi5YcBC0np2DkPafdyt52j9rDDINdy8F08W91WzaME5MhPhhTbXu/DbN shCS2JF4k75BAKHtOKg8v24YfRxAhNeVF+D+lqCPdiKcL7d7FqhT/rwg4Og8/KHE RESSNa1uhd5svM+JHD9v8x1qP3DGOcX8AtAaLhviYAUDg456zVeHhC2HjKxWUvOR 2QEPC0YTShp4+e0yZTlyISIYhdmay+j5nXzI6eK54wgo41axg93K9SQAsrrg84Q= =AG8s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:24:08 UTC