- From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:31:22 -0400
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 18:31:50 UTC
[resend to include list] On Aug 10, 2015 4:48 AM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote: > > It's true that concept schemes, and RDF in general, are produced inconsistently. The concept scheme at > http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/AdministrativeHierarchyLevel/, for example, does include skos:inScheme links but there's no guarantee that such properties will be included. If the property isn't there, and you are using closed world semantics, then the skos:Concept is not in the skos:ConceptScheme, just like an instance is not a member of class if it is not entailed before the world is closed. > This use case is trivial to express in one line of *readable* OWL, and trivial to validate (it only needs OWL-EL, and so it's in p-time, and probably sub-linear). > If every use case similar to this one requires writing complex custom scripts, then the only relevant shape is pear. Simon
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 18:31:50 UTC