Re: Shape inference

I got your point, thank you for your comments, I'll consider this in future
communications to avoid ambiguity.

By the way, regarding this topic: I've deployed an online demo of the
mentioned tool. You can try it here:
With this online demo, you can't do all the things available by cloning the
source code (, but I'm actively
working on both the demo and the code. If you use it and find any issue,
let me know, please.

Best regards,
Dani F.

El mar., 19 mar. 2019 a las 13:11, Thomas Baker (<>)

> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:03:12PM +0100, Eric Prudhommeaux wrote:
> > > The process does seem like a sort of "inference", but the
> > > term is so heavily loaded in common usage towards
> > > _semantic_ inference in the RDF and OWL sense that it
> > > might be best to explicitly draw attention to how you are
> > > using the term differently.
> >
> > It's true that the term is heavily loaded, but I wonder if saying
> > "shape inference" over and over again will cause folks will figure out
> > that the phrase means "inference of shapes" (vs. some sort of
> > inference entailed by shapes). If we can get past our reflexive
> > interpretations, "shape inference" does seem a nice description of it.
> Sure, I could live with that - as long as the difference to semantic
> inference were discussed somewhere.
> Tom
> --
> Tom Baker <>

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 19:53:21 UTC