Eric, in that section, are the examples supposed to represent instance
data, or the validation language? (I find this a common confusion of
mine in much of the W3C discussion where examples are used.)
Moving on, there are definitely going to be cases where data from
different sources using different classes will need to be processed
together. I'm thinking of cases like RDA and BIBFRAME, which have much
the same data but have defined it differently in terms of classes (RDA
classes Work & Expression cover the same "ground" as BIBFRAME Work).
(Ignore the fact that they both refer to "Work".) There is also FRBRoo,
which uses the FRBR concepts but expands the number of classes
(including super- and sub-) that are used to define the bibliographic
data. Then of course there is dcterms data which doesn't use classes as
nodes at all (at least, that's how I read it).
Do these fit in with the proposal? Is this at all related to your question?
kc
On 2/10/15 4:08 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> In http://www.w3.org/2015/02/shapes-article/ , I attempt to clarify
> the common ground between the shapes vs. classes debate. I'd like
> feedback from the DC folks on whether this fits your models and
> whether you would make use of the "record classes", and if so, whether
> to add them as examples to a prospective shapes primer:
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html#associations
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|