W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Transitive?

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:10:04 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <aeebc1ea-d7c0-9ca9-ffd7-842a0dc6b273@topquadrant.com>
Our recent editorial experiments were to use the terms SHACL instance, 
SHACL type and SHACL subclass. I don't find this very attractive to read 
and it gives room to misinterpretation too, e.g. people could read it as 
if we were using different properties than rdf:type or rdfs:subClassOf.

Looking at the RDFS spec [1], we can read

     "The rdfs:subClassOf property is transitive".

This is exactly the relevant bit of "inferencing" that we are using in 
SHACL too.

So why can't we switch to the terms

- transitive subclass
- transitive type
- transitive instance

which should be relatively unambiguous esp given that each usage of 
these terms is now hyperlinked to the terminology section. Furthermore 
transitivity even carries a fairly appropriate meaning:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

Regards,
Holger

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof
Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 12:10:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC