- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:58:31 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/16/15 2:13 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > sh:defaultShapesGraph sounds fine or maybe sh:recommendedShapesGraph. I > won't argue about the property name Huge difference between default and recommended, and for both I would ask "says who?". Essentially, I can't imagine there being only one shapes graph for any vocabulary that is available outside of a very strict enterprise system. I like the idea of shapes being discoverable in some way, but associating a shape with a vocabulary (rather than with instance data) goes against my preferred approach to vocabularies, which is to follow the principle of "minimum ontological commitment" in the vocab and allow many different uses of the vocab through application profiles. This is particularly true of SKOS, which is purposely defined in such a way that the vocabulary contains few restrictions. cf: Key choices in the design of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Thomas Baker , Sean Bechhofer, , , Antoine Isaac,Alistair Miles , Guus Schreiber, , Ed Summers http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001 Table 2 gives the few (6) integrity conditions. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 16:59:03 UTC