- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:16:50 -0400
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Holger, Your observation about the absence of explicit rdf:type triples for rdf:List aligns with my observations about OSLC specifications, namely that rdf:type triples are often viewed as superfluous and are therefore omitted from data graphs. That is why we need other ways to links shapes to data. -- Arthur On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 10/23/15 5:56 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: >> >> The treatment of rdf:List is beyond the above concession and seems to >> be the thin edge of a wedge. If we special case rdf:List, why stop >> there? Why not include the whole of RDFS and maybe OWL too while we're >> at it? > > > In practical experience rdf:List is different from other cases, because > *basically nobody* adds an rdf:type triple to their rdf:List node. If we > don't special-case this, then nobody would be able to say sh:class rdf:List > (which I believe is quite a common requirement). > > Of course I generally dislike special cases, but here I see no practical > alternative. > > Holger > >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 20:17:19 UTC