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

Re: Shapes/ShEx or the worrying issue of yet another syntax and lack of validated vision.

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:48:25 -0700
Message-ID: <53C75599.8090401@gmail.com>
To: "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>

On 07/16/2014 06:16 AM, Dam, Jesse van wrote:
> Hi,
> This is my opinion and comments based on some off the concerns raised by Jerven Bollemand and Holger  KnubLauch.


> If we look at RDFS and OWL, I think there are good reasons not to include that into SHEX. RDFS and especially OWL are well designed standard for doing reasoning, however, there are in no way there were ever intended as language to describe a database structure or to be used as Schema language for validation. It is a pitty that many people misused these standard for this purposes or purposes alike. For further reasons I would advice you to read the conclusion of this paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1270v1.pdf).
> Another thing you can not do in OWL is to define the following:
> Type A -> ex:samepred1 -> Type B
> Type C -> ex:samepred1 -> Type D
> If you would define this in OWL you will also get, because OWL is property oriented and a property can only define a range and domain
> Type A -> ex:samepred1 -> Type D
> Type C -> ex:samepred1 -> Type B
> Which is something we do not want.

Why do you say that?  OWL includes many constructs that are local.  Here you 
can use allValuesFrom, as in

A <= all ex:samepred1 B
C <= all ex:samePred1 D

Why would this not work for you?


> Greetz,
> Jesse van Dam

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 04:48:54 UTC

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