- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:17:30 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
It is the other way around - rdfs:Class is a subclass of rdfs:Resource. ( the same is true for rdf:Property). Not every resource is a class. rdfs:Resource is of type rdfs:Class. This is the meta modeling part. I prefer 'shapes graph'. This communicates that a graph may contain multiple shapes. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 19, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > This may be related to the question of inferencing, but the spec says (2.1.2.1) > > "If, in the shapes graph, a shape is an instance of both sh:Shape and rdfs:Class the shape must get an implicit class scope of the class IRI and the sh:scopeClass triple may be omitted." > > Given that everything that is an instance of sh:Shape is a subclass of rdfs:Resource, and that rdfs:Resource is a subclass of rdfs:Class, aren't all instances of sh:Shape also instances of rdfs:Class? Or does this mean that both must be explicitly declared in the shape graph? > > Thanks, > kc > > p.s. shape graph or shapes graph? it's "a shape" but "a shapes graph" in the text. It's easier to say "shapes graph" but it looks odd to me to switch from singular to plural. Would it be "instance shape" or "instance shapes"? > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 02:18:03 UTC