Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

I don't think that this helps at all.  In fact, all that it does is further
obfuscate the issue.  The issue is that the wording needs to be clear that in

  sh:shape rdf:type my:Shape .
  my:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf.
  my:Shape my:subClassOf sh:Shape .

my:Shape is not a SHACL shape, but that in

  sh:shape rdf:type my:Shape .
  my:Shape rdfs:subClassOf sh:Shape .

it is.

There are many cases where the SHACL notion of subclass, instance, typing,
etc., diverges from the common definition of these notions.


On 03/21/2016 02:05 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Hi Peter, I did some research on other w3c specs regarding the term instance.
> if we changed occurrences of instance from e.g.
> "shapes are the instances of sh:Shape" to
> "sh:Shape is the class of all shapes" 
> would this be fine from your side?
> Some cases like sh:class and sh:classScope would need extra care of course.
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> < <>> wrote:
>     Even in this situation I think that "instance" in the rest of the document
>     needs to be qualified.  Some readers of the document will know about RDFS
>     instance and will need to be continually reminded that the meaning that they
>     know for "instance" is not being used in this document.
>     peter
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects:,,
> http:// <>
> Homepage:
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Monday, 21 March 2016 18:16:09 UTC