W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > July 2014

Re: ShEx relation to SPIN/OWL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:12:22 -0700
Message-ID: <53BE9F46.6050705@nuance.com>
To: <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
>  From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 19:11:47 -0400
> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> Message-ID: <20140707231145.GD19116@w3.org>
> I think Arthur's point about separating schema from data was just
> that, if you want re-use of data, you can't attach your structural
> constraints to the types of the nodes. We don't want everyone who uses
> a foaf:Person to have to follow the same rules about whether or not
> their application permits/requires a givenName, an mbox, etc. Nor do
> we want it that a node can only serve one purpose, e.g. that some node
> can't act as both a User and an Employee [UEMP].


What then do you attach your structural constraints to?

Perhaps you meant to say that having structural constraints and ontology 
definitions in the same document is not a good idea.  I can go along with 
that, but what is wrong with having the ontology definitions say that people 
have children and your structural constraints say that people have at most 
fifty different children?  (Yes, a silly example.)

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 14:12:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC