Re: Transitive?

Using, in particular, "instance" without qualification is confusing with its
meaning in RDFS.   Many readers will believe that they understand this notion
and will not bother to check that it has a special meaning in SHACL.

The point of writing a specification document is so that readers can
understand the precise meaning of something.  If a bit of readability is lost
to achieve this then so be it.

If the working group wants to have document that is more readable, then it
should write a primer.

peter


On 05/16/2016 06:33 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> I would propose further simplify the naming
> the terminology titles could still use SHACL instance, SHACL type, SHACL
> subclass & SHACL class but when we use terms in the text we link to the
> definitions but use instance, type, subclass & class directly
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com
> <mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I seems redundant to define a property as transitive and then use that as
>     a prefix on every use of the property. Begs the question of what subclass,
>     type, or instance isn't transitive, or what those words mean if the prefix
>     word is missing.
> 
> 
>     Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
>     OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
>     919-525-6575
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     From:        Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com
>     <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
>     To:        
>     Date:        05/16/2016 08:11 AM
>     Subject:        Transitive?
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>

Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 13:50:20 UTC