- 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>
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