Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I would like to see an explanation of which approved requirement relies on
rdf:type to "link instances with shapes".

peter

On 04/28/2015 03:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Hi Arthur,
> 
> On 4/29/2015 5:00, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>> Holger,
>> 
>> Your proposal looks like a revival of a discussion we had months ago.
> 
> Yes I remember these long discussions, and I am aware some people are
> tired of this topic.
> 
>> Shapes and Classes are very different things. A Shape is a set of 
>> constraints on a graph. A Class has a set of member resources that 
>> define its extension. The group decided to keep these concepts 
>> separate.
> 
> Yes, they are conceptually different. But can you point me at a
> "decision" by the WG that would make my proposal invalid?
> 
>> You seem to be repeating the same arguments. What is different now? Why
>> should the WG reverse its earlier position?
> 
> As discussed many times, the WG comprises of different camps. Some
> people believe Shapes are all they need, others believe that it would be
> foolish to ignore the existing structures and previous work related to
> classes and replace it with a parallel universe. We have approved
> requirements that rely on rdf:type to link instances with shapes. I would
> appreciate if both sides try to understand each other. My proposal aims
> at making both view points possible. People who prefer to stay in pure
> Shapes can use sh:Shape + sh:nodeShape, while others can use rdf:type +
> rdfs:Class. Yes we could completely separate sh:Shape and rdfs:Class, yet
> I see more downsides than advantages of such a design. In particular,
> cross-inheritance of constraints becomes messy if you have
> rdfs:subClassOf + sh:extends.
> 
> Instead of having philosophical discussions, I have opened this thread to
> try to examine specific proposals, with specific metamodels. If someone
> has better suggestions, then I would like to read details about them. As
> this Class-vs-Shapes topic is very important to some people here, I
> believe we have best chances with a proposal that allows both modeling
> approaches to be used, and then let the users decide which design they
> prefer in practice. It's a web-based standard after all.
> 
> Thanks Holger
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQB+6AAoJECjN6+QThfjzHisIALtwh8k13aRG0GcvYvBwZ2v7
pJJex2+TPoMT1sRilubmFs3UNKr66HR15UN4IoZsrTuY1SkuVu6ZEoXSwnu7+TSI
tR5SBTYM8YLdnWu8pI5eteTeGjm/5CzDChmhGwLcdFzhaWOS0d/kVrqSpM1mZsff
SyuHUhK2NEFMfQ+vWorAa2ReMwlI0whUQ1byyCJoJA+CjCGA/MYEY/4KxW+o/ewX
qFPJVYZcEZxkUgZQ6fC6Cinlq7ZNY565b9MlS2039+jdJZG9hKMlbym6sRrFtw/Y
a9VdD8jmvb52bb5bW6utH1tXhTeZ2rX/xJ++qb1RsA1iROlU/TmLAjjYOoLJJnQ=
=fqx/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 00:03:37 UTC