- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:38:05 -0400
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Irene, Yes, RDFS allows unrestricted use of meta-classes. However, OWL promotes a flatter model in which resources are either classes, properties, or individuals. In the case of templates, Holger is modelling templates as meta-classes. An instance of a template meta-class is a constraint class. An instance of a constraint class is a constraint. We can avoid meta-classes by modelling templates and constraints as simply classes and defining a relation between a template class and the constraint class it produces. I'll work on a concrete proposal. -- Arthur On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote: > Arthur, > > Reflecting on your issues with the circularity and ³crossing of the meta > levels², isn¹t this exactly the same as in RDFS? > > rdfs:Resource a rdfs:Class ; > rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ; > rdfs:label "Resource" ; > rdfs:comment "The class resource, everything." . > > rdfs:Class a rdfs:Class ; > rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ; > rdfs:label "Class" ; > rdfs:comment "The class of classes." ; > rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource . > > > > Irene Polikoff > > > On 10/28/15, 5:49 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: > >>WG, >> >>As per our SOP, I have added a comment with proposals to the Proposal >>page in the wiki [1]. Please review. Thx. >> >>[1] >>https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-95:_Template_Simp >>lifications >> >>-- Arthur >> > >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 12:38:37 UTC