Re: New Terminology Section

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...


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
> <> 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
>> 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