Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

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