RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) from Holger Knublauch on 2015-03-04 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2015)

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:55:27 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <54F69E4F.8070809@topquadrant.com>

On 3/4/2015 12:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Do you want to make RDFS entailment mandatory?
> Yes.
>
>> SPIN/current SHACL would also walk the subClassOf triples here, not just
>> the direct rdf:type. This means that RDFS entailment is not required.
> Yes, and I am violently against going half-way to RDFS.

So here we are back at the long-standing ISSUE-1. At some stage we need 
to tackle this.

As I believe there are reasonable arguments both ways, I suggest we 
collect these arguments on a wiki page and listen to each other before 
threatening with vetos. As usual, the outcome may have to be some 
middle-ground.

Thanks,
Holger

[1] 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-1:_What_inferencing_can_or_must_be_used

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 05:56:33 UTC