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

Re: Shapes are Classes, even if you don't use rdf:type

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2QM4AtgCNxFTf==GyPx0qYOgZC3O2nw-mD2uMw77oaGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>

> On 1/26/15, 4:56 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>> This is exactly how RDFUnit deals with constraint discovery and I 'd
>> definitely +1 this approach
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/
>> 2014Nov/0245.html
> Agreed, and I did not make that connection back then. It looks indeed very
> similar. If you have time, maybe you want to go through the rest of the
> RDFUnit vocabulary to see if LDOM could benefit from other RDFUnit
> features? Maybe you can also help drafting an possible implementation -
> what about ldom:context pointing at ldom:Context instances, which must be
> URIs and may have ldom:subContextOf to form a simple inclusion hierarchy?

I waiting  to finalize a bit on the constraint definition vocabulary, after
that it would be easy to provide a draft (well, probably hacky)
implementation of LDOM and suggest some missing RDFUnit features.
Personally, my time is quite limited at the moment and I feel we are keep
opening too many topics that I can deal with.


> Thanks!
> Holger

Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 08:28:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 January 2015 08:28:59 UTC