+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 <[email protected]> Cc: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, [email protected] Date: 01/18/2012 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Ambiguity in Resource Shape definition + consequent questions [email protected] 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
