Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec]

On 4/9/15 1:21 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 04/03/2015 09:22:49 PM:
>
> > ... Does the notion of
> > entailment appeal to people coming into SHACL from some mainstream OO
> > technology?
>
> Holger,
>
> I don't mean to pick on you but that's another point on which I get 
> confused by your various statements.

It is only natural that I am being picked on, due to the volume of 
emails that I am writing. Well, someone has to be taking initiatives. 
Yet selecting one statement out of context and applying it to another 
context isn't necessarily helpful either.

> On some issues being discussed like this one you seem to want to cater 
> to the non-RDF people, yet when it comes to discussing the semantics 
> you argue that SPARQL is a perfect choice because that's what people know.

Where did I say that people know SPARQL? It must have been one point 
among many others. Why don't you ask the Z supporters how many people 
know Z?

> These can't be the same people you're talking about, right? So, which 
> is our target?

There is a formal specification document that includes both a textual 
description and a SPARQL query for each built-in core element. The 
choice of the latter formalism in the spec is a totally different topic 
from whether entailment is activated at run-time in every system, for 
every end user.

Holger

>
> We have a long standing open issue on who our audience is that maybe 
> we ought to discuss a bit more if audience is used to justify 
> technical choices.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies 
> - IBM Software Group
>
>
> > ...
> > Holger
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/#RDFSEntRegime
> >
> >