- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:14:32 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 2/14/2015 10:42, Michel Dumontier wrote: > It's not that we would only have a shape for any class, it is that we > might have zero or more shapes defined for any subset of the graph of > interest, including classes. > > Consider this: I want to assert that all predicates in my RDF graph > must be annotated with rdfs:label. I am not, however, stating that > this is universally true of RDF predicates, and nor is this a class > (although it could be considered a class expression). We already have > RDF(S)/OWL for descriptions and classification, and I think that > shapes are not *only* special intensions of ontologically-defined classes. We have Global Constraints for your use case: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/#global-constraints > > all this being said, I think that a shape is itself a class, and can > be described using RDF/OWL. It has special properties and special > powers that we will imbue it so that intelligent applications > correctly apply its WG defined semantics. +1 Holger
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 01:15:20 UTC