- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:46:35 +1000
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
You mean "IF instances of superclass can have property P then instances of subclasses can also have property P". This aligns perfectly well with SHACL in that all constraints defined on superclasses "inherit" into subclasses, but subclasses may narrow down further. Again, we can pick another term than "inheritance", if that makes the spec clearer. It's all about English. I know why went into Computing instead... Holger On 11/05/2016 9:34, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > Except that in OO inheritance usually also means "IF superclass has > property P but subclass does not have property P THEN subclass gets > property P". > > Maybe the OO "inheritance" conflates several terms. > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Holger Knublauch > <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 11/05/2016 4:28, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> My gut feeling is that we are wavering between a standard, which can be >>> realized in any number of applications with varying additional >>> functionality, and the description of an actual application. We need to >>> tease those apart. (Quickly, I might add.) >> >> Would you mind elaborating this a bit more? >> >> The basic concept of OO inheritance is that "IF X is an instance of a >> subclass THEN X is also an instance of the superclass". This works the same >> way in OO as in RDFS/OWL, see >> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#cax-sco >> >> Whether type triples can also be inferred from the presence of certain >> properties is not relevant to SHACL. >> >> Holger >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 23:47:08 UTC