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


From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:07:24 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150128151623.GC19059@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-01-28 06:37-0800]
> I think that LDOM is not the kind of thing that this working group is
> supposed to be producing.  In LDOM you do not define shapes or constraints
> and say how they relate to existing classes and properties.  Instead in LDOM
> you define classes in a class hierarchy similar to the class hierarchy of
> RDFS, but different.  In LDOM you define properties at classes and provide
> local ranges and cardinalities for them, ignoring the domain and range
> mechanisms from RDFS.  This makes LDOM a new modeling language, different
> from RDF, from RDFS, and from every variant of OWL.  If there needs to be a
> new W3C modeling language, then the work should be done by a group set up
> for that purpose, not this group.

Would you feel differently if the spec referred to shapes instead of
classes? I suspect that's the most controversial part of LDOM (and I
haven't figured out how it's useful apart from dropping an arc on
global constraints).

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 16:07:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 January 2015 16:07:27 UTC