On 2/16/15 7:32 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
>>
>> The same seems to apply to "shapes" being not classes. Note that the
>> WG is aiming at producing a new language, i.e. none of the existing
>> RDFS/OWL classes would contain (LDOM) definitions yet. From the day
>> that the new standard would be introduced, the owners of the RDFS/OWL
>> ontologies can decide whether they want to define stricter
>> constraints on their instances or not. (Unless the WG decides to
>> repurpose OWL for closed-world checking, but this seems unlikely at
>> this stage for these very reasons). But the existing class
>> definitions may serve as a natural structure to attach constraints to.
>
>
> I'm still a bit hesitant about the idea of having 'new-style classes'
> co-exist with 'old-style classes' in modeling world. The first option
> with explicit shapes seems a bit less dangerous way to go for data
> modelers.
> I agree it should be doable to do it with 'new-style classes', in
> theory; but the other pattern looks more appealing to me.
Again, to be clear, we would be talking about something like
ex:MyShape
a rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf ex:ParentShape ;
ldom:property [
ldom:predicate ex:property ;
ldom:minCount 1 ;
] .
An alternative that is being discussed would look like
ex:MyShape
a ldom:Shape ;
ldom:extends ex:ParentShape ;
ldom:property [
ldom:predicate ex:property ;
ldom:minCount 1 ;
] .
If this was the distinction you are also talking about, why would the
latter be more appealing to you?
Thanks for clarification
Holger
|