I fully agree with the statement below. There can be and will be other
triggers than the rdf:type triple. And Shapes can be regarded as
separate conceptual entities from classes. But the latter does not
exclude the solution to *syntactically* declare them as classes (e.g.
ldom:Shape rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class, then instantiate ldom:Shape (or
ldom:ShapeClass) to communicate your intention). This would reduce the
risk of a schism in the semantic web.
Holger
On 2/17/15 10:16 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> +1
>
> On 2/17/15 5:07 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>> That's fine, but my sense of the rough consensus on this list is that we
>> agree with Corey when he says, "the more absolute notion that class
>> membership is the only trigger or that classes and shapes are the same
>> construct seems to unnecessarily narrow the scope in which ldom will be
>> useful".
>
|