Re: multiple value shape?

typo fixed in x:SurgicalProcedure example.


* Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> [2015-05-29 00:13-0400]
> * Thomas Weber <thomas.weber@osthus.com> [2015-05-28 13:57+0000]
> > I want to state that a composite shape ex:C has exactly one part ex:A and minimum one part ex:B. A and B are disjunct shapes (classes)
> 
> Here's a ShEx example with this notion of a QCR using
> hasBiologicalParent: <http://w3.org/brief/NDUy> . Note that
> in the Validation Mesages, <Alice> passes while <Bob> fails.
> 
> 
> > ex:a1 sh:nodeShape ex:A .
> > ex:a2 sh:nodeShape ex:A .
> > ex:b1 sh:nodeShape ex:B .
> 
> I don't think sh:nodeShape tells the validation engine to assume that
> something has a shape. I gave ex:A and ex:B some testable conditions
> and used nodeShape to test for validation of c1 and c2 in
> <http://w3.org/brief/NDUz>.
> 
> 
> > ex:c1 ex:hasPart ex:a1, ex:b1 .
> > ex:c2 ex:hasPart ex:a1, ex:a2, ex:b1 .
> > 
> > ex:c1 should pass shape ex:C, ex:c2 not.
> > 
> > My understanding is that
> > ex:C a sh:Shape;
> >                 sh:property [
> >                                 sh:predicate ex:hasPart;
> >                                 sh:minCount 1;
> >                                 sh:maxCount 1;
> >                                 sh:valueShape ex:A;
> >                 ];
> >                 sh:property [
> >                                 sh:predicate ex:hasPart;
> >                                 sh:minCount 1;
> >                                 sh:valueShape ex:B;
> >                 ];
> >                 .
> > would be an incorrect shape and could never be fulfilled.
> > 
> > Instead something like:
> > ex:C a sh:Shape;
> >                 sh:property [
> >                                 sh:predicate ex:hasPart;
> >                                 sh:qualified [
> >                                                 sh:minCount 1;
> >                                                 sh:maxCount 1;
> >                                                 sh:valueShape ex:A;
> >                                 ];
> >                                 sh:qualified [
> >                                                 sh:minCount 1;
> >                                                 sh:valueShape ex:B;
> >                                 ]
> >                 ]
> >                 .
> > 
> > that limits the cardinality constraint to a local scope of sh:valueShape is needed.
> > 
> > Does the group has already a concept how to handle this?
> 
> One limitation of asserting that the QCRs have to be attached to the
> same triple constraint is that you can't e.g. make some be in an OR.
> Using ShExC for compactness, a :SurgicalProcedure has a performer
> in either the role of :Surgeon or :EmergencyPhysician, optionally
> an acting :Anesthesiologist, and if the :site is cardio-related,
> a :Cardiologist, or a neurologist for neuro sites:
> 
> x:SurgicalProcedure {
>   :performer { :role (:Surgeon :EmergencyPhysician) },
>   :performer { :role (:Anesthesiologist) }?,
>   ( :site (:Heart :Aorta :VenaCava), :performer [ :role (:Cardiologist) ]
>    |:site (:Brain :Spine), :performer [ :role (:Neurologist) ]
>   )
> }

Nested shapes are {}s (not []s as above):

PREFIX x: <x:>
PREFIX : <:>

start = x:SurgicalProcedure

x:SurgicalProcedure {
  :performer { :role (:Surgeon :EmergencyPhysician) },
  :performer { :role (:Anesthesiologist) }?,
  ( :site (:Heart :Aorta :VenaCava), :performer { :role (:Cardiologist) }
   |:site (:Brain :Spine), :performer { :role (:Neurologist) }
  )
}

Here's a mockup:
http://w3.org/brief/NDU0


> Having all :performers groupes in the same triple constraint would
> prevent us from saying that we require a cardiologist if the site
> is a cardio site.
> 
> 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Thomas Weber
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > OSTHUS GmbH
> > Eisenbahnweg 9 - 11
> > Eingang TH 6
> > 52068 Aachen
> > 
> > Tel.:     +49 241-94314-27
> > Fax:     +49 241-94314-19
> > Email: thomas.weber@osthus.de<mailto:thomas.weber@osthus.de>
> > Web:  www.osthus.de<http://www.osthus.de>
> > [linkedin1]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/osthus>  [twitter1] <https://twitter.com/OSTHUS>
> > Handelsniederlassung: 52068 Aachen
> > Register: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 6398
> > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Torsten Osthus, Wolfgang Colsman, Andreas Mohr
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist ausschließlich für den bezeichneten Adressaten bestimmt. Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen Vertreter sein sollten, so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veröffentlichung, Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail unzulässig ist. Wir bitten Sie, sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in Verbindung zu setzen.
> > ________________________________________________
> > 
> > The information contained in this email is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of disclosure, reproduction, distribution or any action taken or refrained from in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender immediately.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> 
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
> 
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 04:33:53 UTC