- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:22:23 -0400
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Holger, I added this to your page[1] [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-1:_What_inferencing_can_or_must_be_used#Relation_of_Entailment_to_Non-Unique_Name_Assumption_and_Comparison_of_Lexical_Forms_to_Literal_Values On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2015 12:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> >>> Do you want to make RDFS entailment mandatory? >> >> Yes. >> >>> SPIN/current SHACL would also walk the subClassOf triples here, not just >>> the direct rdf:type. This means that RDFS entailment is not required. >> >> Yes, and I am violently against going half-way to RDFS. > > > So here we are back at the long-standing ISSUE-1. At some stage we need to > tackle this. > > As I believe there are reasonable arguments both ways, I suggest we collect > these arguments on a wiki page and listen to each other before threatening > with vetos. As usual, the outcome may have to be some middle-ground. > > Thanks, > Holger > > [1] > https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-1:_What_inferencing_can_or_must_be_used >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:22:51 UTC