Re: Fwd: Re: ISSUE-23: sh:ShapeClass?

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>
> On 5/14/15 7:09 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>
>  If the metaclass is used only for the people who prefer to avoid the
> typing of an extra type statement I would prefer they do it in their own
> namespace. I would rather make sh:ShapeClass a subClass of sh:Shape only
> but this is only my opinion,
>
>
> What would be the purpose of sh:ShapeClass if it were just a subclass of
> sh:Shape?
>

Syntactic sugar for the user and the shacl engines to mix the IRIs.
if someone states " :ex a sh:ShapeClass" the shacl engine will assume " :ex
a sh:Shape ; sh:scopeClass :ex"
weather or not (and where) " :ex a rdfs:Class / owl:Thing / ..." is defined
would be out of scope for shacl.

>From your replies I cannot understand if you want something more that this
and what would be the extra benefit of making sh:ShapeClass a sub class of
rdfs:Class.


> To me, if we allow mixing the URIs (which I hope) then sooner or later
> somebody will create such a mixed metaclass anyway (e.g. tq:ShapeClass,
> possibly with special support in TopBraid tools). We should rather
> acknowledge that this will happen and reserve a proper URI for that
> construct.
>
> There have been other cases where language designers (with good
> intentions) have tried to protect users from certain situations, to reduce
> worst-case complexity. But it is very hard for such a small group as ours
> to anticipate all practical use cases and the best practices that people
> will want to use in projects.
>
> Regarding some comments from the call today, yes I agree that not every
> ontology should be enriched with such constraints, especially if the
> ontology is meant to be reusable as linked data. But this choice should be
> left to the creators of these models - there are plenty of controlled use
> cases where mixing classes and shapes will be a good practice. I'd argue
> that many (if not most) successful semantic technology applications live
> inside of company networks anyway. Even on the open web there are cases
> where we want to communicate the relevant properties of a class to
> *everyone* that subscribes to our namespace. Whether we do this via an
> indirect link (sh:scopeClass) or directly at the class is merely a
> syntactic difference, and I'd vote for the more maintainable and intuitive
> syntax.
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: http://aksw.org