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.

peter


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
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> 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://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
> http://http://aligned-project.eu <http://aligned-project.eu/>
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>

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