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


From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:07:52 -0800
Message-ID: <54C93388.2050601@kcoyle.net>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I see. I was reading it as a model for managing and validating RDF or 
OWL information in private/closed data stores. In fact, it seems to 
eschew any contact with the web, and treats the semantic aspects of 
RDF/OWL as (and I quote Holger) "pie in the sky." I'm still trying to 
understand if RDF data intended for the web will fit into its processing 
model, and again if local data that can be managed by it could also have 
a web presence without great modification.

I personally was hoping for a solution that is more compatible with RDF 
data on the web. So perhaps you and I are not entirely far apart in our 
thinking, although perhaps for different reasons.


On 1/28/15 9:23 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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
> Z7gXzvQqTeXpu1OiFti7KfzqzIVJFjd3qxXyJ0SEFAYgab2VSosCPCmzKjTF0V1d
> LrQRQ/To3/xoTJXiGKTWXXFMyPT3c8xPIQyX4PL+rSXzdlA1Eo9Klm6yD3vDeahI
> i71ES19hbNfycGkghis/bnQDaRQg2Dgr7RSUGDzJhDRTR9B1kjEuLA73Ntz7pC4V
> eyw5SqfjOeWQLprqtOq90vGoImu4tQpCvQCdHubYdgrS6Kb3I7Yt/B59LK2c+qIV
> 5BHkw6VoajyEsvmBfErd9c/RE9slWKE4WWAvW5/DIgAhSijCQChd+eYTxP6aKpY=
> =bjwC

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 19:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 January 2015 19:08:23 UTC