- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:47:57 -0400
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Even in the enterprise system context, there are likely to be multiple shape definitions for the same type of resources depending on the needs of a particular application. I think associating shapes with a vocabulary will be useful in many situations and it is already covered. Associating a vocabulary with a separate shapes graph is less so and would have to be carefully explained. I think this is where Karenıs question on the meaning of ³recommended² or ³default² comes from. Is this a minimum set of constraints any user of a vocabulary MUST abide by? If so, canıt they just be put in the vocabulary graph? Or is this something else? ³Recommended² may simply mean ³recommended by the authors of this model, but you decide if you will use them². If so, then is this primarily for documentation purposes so that people who use the vocabulary are informed? If there is a default defined, can there be another set of constraints (in addition to this set) that is specified some other way such as a connection between shapes and vocabulary or between data and vocabulary? If so, does it override the default or is it in addition to the default? Irene Polikoff On 10/16/15, 12:58 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > >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 18:48:34 UTC