- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 08:38:49 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Peter, I found your first email on this topic more constructive, where you stated that this is going in the right direction. You have meanwhile raised a new ISSUE for the topic of subclassing. I believe we can and should handle these two topics individually. My proposed simplifications address the issue of having an unnecessary amount of AbstractXY classes, so there are definitive benefits. I suggest to approve this suggestion and then look at ISSUE-101 as a next possible refactoring. I see no reason why ISSUE-101 should block progress on ISSUE-95. On 10/8/2015 23:16, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > As far as I can tell the only change to 7.3 Template Instantiation is to add > a clarification sentence at the end, which does not make a technical change > at all. > > The beginning of 7.4 Template Injection does not make any sense at all. > What is an "instance node"? The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the > document at all. On the branch of the spec I have switched from "instance node" to "constraint node". What else does not make sense at all? I'd appreciate specific feedback. > This section also overloads sh:scopeClass. I believe the approach uses sh:scopeClass consistently with its meaning. Using the example from 7.4, if you have an instance of sh:PropertyConstraint then these instances must fulfill the structural constraints at the shape ex:LanguageConstraint. In particular they must fulfill the definition of the sh:argument ex:lang, e.g. to make sure that languages must be strings. This means that infrastructure for editing and constraint checking can be reused for constraint definitions, leading to significantly lower costs of adoption - and I speak from experience as someone who is building such tools. Holger > > > The approach continues to use rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance. The > rdfs:subClassOf property is defined on RDFS classes as the way to state that > one class is a subclass of another. It is not about inheritance between > non-classes. I thus vote against this change. The first change that needs > to be done is to replace the use of rdfs:subClassOf. > > > > peter
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 22:39:26 UTC