Re: interoperability (was Re: isolating shapes in named graphs)

+1 to Dean's Bank scenario.

In Rational we make IDEs (many are based on Eclipse, which is what 
TopBraid Composer uses) and many of our customers use the IDEs in locked 
down environment where external network access is restricted. We first hit 
this problem with XML schema and XML documents being validated. We had to 
provide a mechanism (aka the catalog) for shipping local copies with the 
IDE. The same probably will occur with vocabularies, shapes, etc. However, 
this is really just a form of caching.

That being said, the question remains, Where did the cached copy come 
from? and Did you modify it? If you are using your IDE because you want to 
develop an app that is going to be deployed into some environment that is 
going to enforce some standards (e.g. JEE), then clearly you want your 
local copies to come from the authoritative source for those standards, 
and you better not modify them, otherwise your app may fail when you 
deploy it.

So whether or not you cache something, the key question is: Do you require 
interoperability of the artifacts you are developing with some other 
system? I don't believe that semantic technology is significantly 
different from HTML, CS, JS, JEE, XML, etc. in this respect.
_________________________________________________________
Arthur Ryman
Chief Data Officer
SWG | Rational
905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
IBM InterConnect 2015




From:   Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
To:     Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc:     "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Date:   11/26/2014 08:43 PM
Subject:        Re: interoperability (was Re: isolating shapes in named 
graphs)
Sent by:        deanallemang@gmail.com



To take this one step further - in a high-security situation (like a 
bank), this sort of architecture isn't "nice" or "optional" it is 
mandatory.  The Bank is not willing to fetch e.g. skos.rdf from the W3C 
website and load that in to our production (or even dev, for that matter) 
server.  What happens if the W3C site was hacked?  Or there was a 
man-in-the-middle?  Now we have arbitrary malicious stuff in the models in 
the production system.  

No, my Managing Director absolutely insists that we have our own copies of 
SKOS, PROV, and even RDFS and OWL inside our own firewall. 



On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com
> wrote:
On 11/27/2014 10:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
I think that the relevance of this part of the thread is whether 
associating constraints/shapes with ontologies commits one to using those 
shapes.  The argument against committing appears to be that one would then 
lose interoperability.

What we do in TopBraid is that people can have local copies of remote 
files in their local "workspace". If an owl:import is found, it first 
looks if a local copy of that graph URI exists. That local copy may have 
different definitions, drop constraints or whatever, if the particular 
application wants to do that. I believe this is straight-forward 
architecture that other systems use too. Yet, there is value in publishing 
the original constraints in the master copy of an ontology, on the 
network. Specifications such as SKOS, PROV and other user stories in our 
list would arguably have done that if there had been a standard.

Holger

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:39:02 UTC