- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:04:34 -0500
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "'Jerven Tjalling Bolleman'" <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: "'RDF Data Shapes Working Group'" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
< Saying that a square is subclass of a rectangle and that squares have their width and breadth equal doesn't make square a shape> <Saying that squares are precisely those rectangles whose width and breadth are equal does make square a shape> For practical purposes, what is the difference? -----Original Message----- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:21 PM To: Irene Polikoff; Jerven Tjalling Bolleman Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Subject: Re: shapes and classes: different -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The defining characteristic of shapes is that they are provided with conditions that determine which objects belong to them. Saying that a square is subclass of a rectangle and that squares have their width and breadth equal doesn't make square a shape even though it may be the case that objects belonging to square are precisely those objects that have an rdf:type link to it. Saying that squares are precisely those rectangles whose width and breadth are equal does make square a shape as this provides a set of conditions that determine when an object is a square. peter On 01/26/2015 09:24 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >> Your word shape is my word owl:Class. > > +1 > > So, the simplest solution is not to have a new thing called Shape. > > Another option may be to use it as a type so that some classes can be > of type Shape as well as Class. > > This seems to be unnecessary though as every class is already a shape. > At minimum, even if there are no other constraints declared for a > class, it says that all instances belonging to it must have a certain > type triple. If there is a class :Person, then its instances must have > :Person1 a ::Person triple (whether it is asserted or inferred, > doesn't matter). A very minimalistic data shape, but still a shape. > > Irene > > On Jan 26, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Jerven Tjalling Bolleman > <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch <mailto:jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>> wrote: > >> I really can't help myself... >> >> On 26/01/15 15:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > The most important aspect of classes is that you state that objects > belong to them. If you don't state that objects belong to X, X is not > a class. > > The most important aspect of shapes is that you provide conditions > stating precisely when an object belongs to them. If you don't provide > conditions stating precisely when an object belongs to X, X is not a > shape. > > Having shapes also be classes implies that you state that objects > belong to shapes. Having classes also be shapes implies that you > provide recognition conditions for classes. Both situations are > possible, but both have consequences. >>> Your word shape is my word owl:Class. Allowing class membership >>> inference from recognition conditions is as normal as class member >>> ship assertion directly in the data. But I am absolutely >>> flabbergasted that I am having this argument with one of the OWL2 >>> editors! >>> >>> Basically I am reading your response as class membership only >>> inferred is "shape membership". Class membership asserted is not >>> "shape membership". Or paraphrased: Shapes only allows triples with >>> the shape:member predicate (IMO equivalent to rdf:type) to be >>> inferred and not asserted. >>> >>> > > peter >>> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Jerven Bolleman Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch >> <mailto:Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch> SIB Swiss Institute of >> Bioinformatics Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85 CMU, rue Michel Servet 1 >> Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58 1211 Geneve 4, Switzerland www.isb-sib.ch >> <http://www.isb-sib.ch> - www.uniprot.org <http://www.uniprot.org> >> Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUxoWCAAoJECjN6+QThfjz+V4H/iV8kUJVuwihUMSbYifPAiqx hfVmsHUiDbtON9BisNq9eJJJkJ1GOewrCI/KXZYJ9sDaZJLPZzTigV2mpuxu1xRr vfp2yDT6oYnCFXZ19aZNrYCzfS7RrEvLZS8o+ZLZQENSK1djyEp/duBeVJYy5mBa p4RB556xun192EJLyBxynO2A7PfmuGMFKgiYvQvQYd8hp9UCZ4fpBkMPOEaG+QfX 1iKVM0BrnIPJy4kqJCEffB9QGLeoHMUdbsG8gzx150lche/YYzWcaN07L7i3xq7H CseP9ZGt/PJJ0awZecL+I3RZ4Yv82qRTttAS8tz6cEzwwkEszQ4tJ8aC7E/aHrQ= =1H8T -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 19:05:11 UTC