Re: Constraints on classes

On 4/26/15 2:37 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Holger, I think I explained it clearly, although not in words that you 
> would use. We can't all be you, after all.

I am just trying to use standard RDF terminology.
>
> So I attach an actual file.

That's better. Does the following express what you need then?

ore:Aggregation
     sh:property [
         sh:predicate edm:aggregatedCHO ;
         sh:valueType edm:CHO ;
         sh:minCount 1 ;
     ] .

(Assuming edm:ProvidedCHO rdfs:subClassOf edm:CHO).

Holger

>
> kc
>
> On 4/24/15 7:19 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/15 11:56 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> I've been trying to understand if this is covered by existing
>>> requirements or not...
>>>
>>> The Dublin Core set of requirements for application profiles
>>> (including validation)[1] has some constraints based on classes (read:
>>> rdf:type) not properties. For example,
>>>
>>> - For every node/graph of type edm:CHO there must also be a linked
>>> node/graph of type ore:Aggregation.
>>
>> Could you clarify what you mean with "node/graph"? Do you assume a
>> certain architecture in which each subject resource lives in its own
>> graph? Also, is the property known or is it "any" (wildcard) linked
>> property? If it's a known property, and assuming you mean "node" instead
>> of "graph" then this could be expressed via
>>
>> edm:CHO
>>      sh:property [
>>          sh:predicate edm:someProperty ;
>>          sh:valueType ore:Aggregation ;
>>          sh:minCount 1 ;
>>      ] .
>>
>>>
>>> - For every node/graph of type ex:Book there can be 0..n linked nodes
>>> of type ex:Author, but no nodes of type ex:Composer.
>>
>> You didn't provide enough information to model this. Do you have two
>> properties ex:author and ex:composer, or are they all values of the same
>> property? In the former case this could be:
>>
>> ex:Book
>>      sh:property [
>>          sh:predicate ex:author ;
>>          sh:valueType ex:Author ;
>>      ] ;
>>      sh:property [
>>          sh:predicate ex:composer ;
>>          sh:maxCount 0 ;
>>      ] ;
>>
>> (or maybe also sh:constraint sh:ClosedShape instead of the ex:composer
>> restriction).
>>
>> HTH
>> Holger
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked this many moons ago and was assured that it was included in
>>> the existing requirements, but if it's there I haven't identified it.
>>> Is this covered, or do I need to add a story+requirement proposal?
>>>
>>> BTW, we are doing an analysis comparing the DCMI requirements with
>>> this group's requirements. This is one of the more significant gaps.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 25 April 2015 22:16:25 UTC