I unfortunately cannot answer that because it never was explained in a
way that made sense to me. This discussion went on for at least 12
months and there isn't any one place where it is summarized. One
argument was "convenience" - with the assumption that most target nodes
in the data graph would be identified by their class membership
(rdf:type), that it would be convenient to use the same IRI for the
shape as in the data graph. To my mind, the sharing of IRIs for this
purpose is not compatible with RDF. But I may have misunderstood.
kc
On 5/4/16 12:14 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:39:30PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> The issue of scopes and classes has been one of the hot buttons in
>> the group from the beginning, with a few wanting shapes to always be
>> classes, and others wanting shapes to be resources that are not
>> inherently classes.
>
> I can't imagine how the advocates of "shape = class" argued the case.
> What sort of instances would comprise the extension of a shape?
>
> Tom
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|