Re: Two Standards ?

  My preference is to declare a shape, define the constraints, and to
associate with a target subgraph (if any). I'd do it similar to what you're
proposing for templates / functions.

m.

Michel Dumontier, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
Stanford University
http://dumontierlab.com

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>