Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

On 3/11/16 9:27 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> So, SHACL uses RDF terms from RDFS, particularly rdfs:subClassOf, and notions
> from RDFS, notably instance, but in a way different from what they mean in
> RDFS (and RDF).   The SHACL specification documents need to distinguish their
> use of these well-known terms from their dominant meaning.

I've heard readers of the SHACL document refer to this varied use of 
RDF/RDFS terms as a "non-starter" that weakens the entire premise of the 
standard, and I tend to agree. I would say that if you aren't using a 
term as it is defined in its definitional standard, then you should 
create a new term that corresponds to your meaning. We already insisted 
on that for sh:label, and it may be needed for other properties as well.

Peter, I would benefit from a less rhetorical approach - the dramatic 
repetition of "Not in SHACL" would be more informative if it were 
followed by what IS in SHACL, rather than making us all trying to guess 
what's wrong here, especially those of us who might not see it as 
clearly as others. Help us out, please. Thanks.

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 18:19:49 UTC