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: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.)
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
> 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
> +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.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net