W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM)

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 07:49:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJadXX+JRkPyZfXP5413JNJxzNizn0okVggPTMg8_6f4VGkGNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>

> On 1/24/15, 4:03 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>> Also, although it was not the case in my example, there could be other
>> examples where you even don't define the type of the nodes. Some times when
>> you are modeling linked data portals that extract data from relational
>> databases or excel sheets, you extract values from tables and link
>> properties to them. You could assign those generated nodes an rdf:type, but
>> it should not be mandatory. And this is or will be a very common use case
>> for linked data applications.
> If there is no rdf:type, which other information is used to determine what
> shape an instance is supposed to have? We need to clarify the starting
> points of constraint evaluation.

Yes, but that's a different issue and that's why we have a requirement
about how to select the nodes that you are validating.

In my opinion, not forcing shapes to be related with classes offers a
better separation of concerns. And of course, we can also maintain a
special case where shapes are associated with classes.

> Holger

Saludos, Labra
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2015 06:50:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 24 January 2015 06:50:31 UTC