[oslc-core] Ambiguity in Resource Shape definition + consequent questions

[John Arwe]

+1 -- Arthur's simplification is fine -in the context of- the description 
of oslc:describes on a ResourceShape.  It says nothing limiting, so 
oslc:instanceShape is simply orthogonal.
Q2-Q6 are updates to the text in that section (larger context), and they 
*do* need to avoid precluding oslc:instanceShape, hence the "...or 
instances..." phrase in Q2/Q4 proposals.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario




From:   Andrew J Berner/Dallas/IBM
To:     Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
Cc:     John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM at IBMUS, oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:   01/18/2012 12:05 PM
Subject:        Re: [oslc-core] Ambiguity in Resource Shape definition + 
consequent      questions




oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 01/18/2012 10:42:33 AM:

Arthur said:
> John,
> 
> I think both mine and yours could be simplified to just this:
> This shape describes resources that are of any of these types. 
> Formally, a shape S applies to a resource R if there is a triple R 
> rdf:type T and there is a triple S oslc:describes T.
>

But I think there's one more case covered by John's description:

A shape S applies to a resource R if there is a triple R 
oslc:instanceShape S

This covers the case that R doesn't declare a type, but still says that S 
is it's shape (independent of what shapes S describes)

Andy Berner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20120120/4fdc74c5/attachment.html>