Re: Transitive?

My default interpretation of terms like "instance" is to include 
transitivity, and I believe this is also what the majority of readers 
would expect. To express the "direct" relationship, we would use 
something like "has a <a>value</a> X for <code>rdf:type</code>".

We added the prefix "SHACL" or "transitive" to distinguish our meaning 
from the full RDFS meaning with inferences such as sub-properties of 
rdfs:subClassOf.

I would also favor Dimitris' proposal of defining the verbose terms in 
the top only, because we already have hyperlinks which are unambiguous. 
Many documents state "For the remainder of this document, we use the 
following definitions..." so if people misunderstand things, then they 
have not read the full document. Not our problem then, from a formal 
point of view. This isn't for casual readers.

So we have 3 proposals now and could do a RESOLUTION in the next meeting 
as to what variation to use for the next publication cycle.

Holger


On 16/05/2016 23:00, Jim Amsden 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>