Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications

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