Does the Shapes group require a type assignment to qualify its functionality? The answer shouldn't be important.
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Holger Knublauch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> FWIW the issue about inferencing is unresolved within the Shapes group. It is quite possible/likely that OWL inferencing is not required for the system to work. In practical deployments, many (if not most) RDF applications that I have seen do not have inferencing activated.
>
> Holger
>
>
>> On 1/24/15, 11:35 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> Karen,
>>
>> As you suggest an RDFS reasoner would infer rdf*s*:Resource.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_resource
>>
>> RDFS says tomaytos, OWL says tomottos, let's call the whole thing off. :-)
>>
>> I claim that things/resources exist and can be understood without class assignments. The same is true for, say, names. Names and types are very handy, but not essential.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff, would owl:Thing really be inferred in data that limits itself to RDFS? I think it depends on the applications, and today many applications are OWL-based (and therefore convert RDFS to OWL). Using RDFS I can see that rdf:Resource would be the logical inference when no subclass of rdf:Resource is included in the instance data, but I'm not sure how and when OWL becomes a default. In any case, is my assumption correct that one CAN create even complex graphs without necessarily making use of explicit classes?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/15 12:19 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>> Dealing with this might be an example:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd720.html
>>>>
>>>> It's not so much that adding some types wouldn't be helpful, but sometimes we just don't know... at least not yet... and perhaps never will.
>>>>
>>>> Also note that at least one class could be automatically inferred: owl:Thing. That's because anything imaginable is, at the very least, a thing.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 3:05 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [RDF AP] First draft validation language proposal
>>>>>
>>>>> I am having trouble getting across the idea that one might create data without
>>>>> using explicit classes. I thought we could provide a DCT example, and started
>>>>> one, but I think it needs to show more complexity.
>>>>> The reason I think that is that members of the group are unable to conceive of
>>>>> robust data without classes. So here's my start, and perhaps someone can
>>>>> improve on it:
>>>>>
>>>>> @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
>>>>> @prefix ex: <http://example.com/> .
>>>>> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>>>>>
>>>>> ex:A dct:title "Here's my book" ;
>>>>> dct:creator [
>>>>> dct:name "Karen" ;
>>>>> foaf:website <http://kcoyle.net/me> ] .
>>>>> dct:publisher <http://www.publisher.com> ;
>>>>> dct:date "2015" .
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.publisher.com dct:name "Good Books" .
>>>>>
>>>>> (I'm not sure that this illustrates what I intend it to.)
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/23/15 10:51 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:12:38AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>>>> "Shapes" is a new term in this context, though, which has both
>>>>>>> positive and negative aspects: positive because it carries less
>>>>>>> baggage, negative because it will be unfamiliar and will have to be
>>>>>>> learned.
>>>>>> Yes - agreed. IMO the lack of baggage is good. The language will
>>>>>> will have be learned, whatever it is called.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Peter Patel-Schneider is dead set against anything that uses the
>>>>>>> term "resource" because of potential conflicts with how "resource"
>>>>>>> is defined in RDF.)
>>>>>> I'm with Peter on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The group has talked quite a bit about what to call the "target" of
>>>>>>> validation -- some favor using "class" because they anticipate in
>>>>>>> their environments that every graph they address will be
>>>>>>> distinguished as a particular class. Although I can see their point,
>>>>>>> I'm not sure that the use of classes for open data will be as
>>>>>>> extensive or reliable as it is in the enterprise systems that most
>>>>>>> working group members work on. If we anticipate using
>>>>>>> "un-constrained" RDA properties, then we do not have class
>>>>>>> information to rely on to distinguish groups of triples for
>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>> +1 to your position on this. I strongly feel that this new language
>>>>>> should not depend on classes or in any way force the use of classes
>>>>>> (i.e., of specific subclasses of Resource). The example of
>>>>>> unconstrained RDA properties sounds good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|