- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:30:56 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 8/6/14, 11:00 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > The above use cases are orthogonal to use cases where an RDF class defines > constraints that must be universally obeyed, independent of the context, > i.e. a bicycle must have two wheels. Yes, that's what I thought. We have seen many more examples of the latter than the former, and I believe the structure of existing ontology languages suggests that it should be possible to "attach" constraints to classes. I personally believe your use case is the exception, not the rule, but of course I would like to see a generic solution that covers all use cases so that the standardization process succeeds. I believe the most pragmatic way forward will be to generalize SPIN so that constraint definitions can be hosted by a "Shape" object, and that no rdf:type triple is required to trigger evaluation. I am confident that we can come up with a reasonable design for that use case, and the syntax will probably be almost identical. I am however still hoping to get away with the minimum necessary language for the job, and keep it simple and intuitive. But we can defer this to the WG. Holger
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 22:31:27 UTC