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


From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:23:28 -0800
Message-ID: <54C91B10.7060603@gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hash: SHA1

Maybe being more terse is the right way to go.

LDOM is a new model for organizing information on the web, different from
RDFS and OWL.  In my opinion that's not what this working group
should be doing.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications.

On 01/28/2015 08:30 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Peter,
> I, for one, could use a less terse exposition of your thoughts. Is the 
> use of classes the crux of your argument or the totality of it? Are the 
> domains and ranges you refer to limited to those defined in the RDF or 
> OWL ontology, or can they also be defined in the validation language?
> etc etc etc Oh, and is this all answered in your proposed CONSTRAINTS 
> language? (Which is on my "re-read again and again" list.)
> Thanks, kc
> On 1/28/15 6:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 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.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Version: GnuPG v1

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 17:23:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 January 2015 17:23:58 UTC