On 2/16/15 4:03 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Antoine
>> 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,
>
>
> Yes!
>
>
>> why would the latter be more appealing to you?
>
>
> Because the former is too close to existing OWL modeling. The rationale
> for distinction between ldom:property/ldom:predicate/ldom:minCount and
> the 'regular' OWL constructs is much more difficult to get when either
> set can be attached to the same kind of resources, using patterns that
> furiously look the same. I expect some people will remain confused for a
> long time. And may want to directly attach shapes constructs to the
> 'real classes' from the ontologies they (re-)use.
How would the "latter" work in an aggregation of data where one source
is using DCT exclusively, and no rdf:type is declared? In other words,
doesn't this solution require that all participants are in agreement to
use the rdf:type that has been developed for the sole purpose of
validation?
And also, let's consider that not everyone is using OWL. There are
bibliographic vocabularies that use only RDFS.
kc
>
> Antoine
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|