type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

On 03/06/2016 08:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Peter. I have tried to address it here:

[...]

> On 7/03/2016 6:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> General

[...]

>> It is not sufficient to say in 1.1 that SHACL has unique versions of types
>> and instances.  These notions are in very widespread use.  Each time that
>> SHACL deviates from the common, accepted W3C practice it should be called
>> out, e.g., "SHACL type" or "SHACL instance".
> 
> I hope this doesn't need to be repeated each time as this may render the
> document harder to read. Furthermore, the terms "SHACL type" and "SHACL
> instance" would first need to be formally defined too.
> 
> Instead, I suggest we should define what "type", "instance" and "subclass"
> mean in the remainder of the document. I have put a corresponding terminology
> block at the end of section 1.1

This is inadequate.

SHACL uses RDF graphs and RDFS vocabulary.  There are already definitions of
type and instance and subclass that come from RDF and RDFS.  SHACL needs to
differentiate its version of type and instance and subclass from these
dominant notions and this can only be reliably done by qualifying them each
time they appear in formal SHACL documents.

Alternatively the SHACL document could use different words for these
relationships or could restrict the inputs that it handles so that it uses the
dominant versions of type and instance and subclass.

peter

Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 15:51:46 UTC