Re: shapes as classes

Without knowing what sort of thing you want to do with this, it is impossible 
to determine whether you are depending on an implicit connection.

peter


On 12/20/2014 08:22 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/14 8:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> The narrative for S35 says "There is no path from the
>> acc:AccessContextList node to either of the acc:AccessContext nodes.
>> There is an implicit containment relation of acc:AccessContext nodes in
>> the acc:AccessContextList by virtue of these nodes being in the same
>> information resource."  This implicit connection is not part of RDF.
>
> An example would really help here. I have what may be a similar example from
> the Europeana data. I'm not sure if this mailing list takes attachments, so
> the (short) example is here:
>
> http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl
>
> I cut the data down from something with dozens of related files and subject
> headings, but I think I kept the structure intact. The main nodes of the model
> are edm:ProvidedCHO and ore:Aggregation. The data is natively in RDF/XML but I
> have trouble reading that so I converted it to TTL.
>
> Q: Is this an example of what is being discussed here?
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
>
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/2014 06:01 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> DC has at least one similar case, in use today. Can you, however, say
>>> what you
>>> mean by "some characteristic of two nodes"? What "characteristics"
>>> would put
>>> them out of scope?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 12/19/14 4:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> If the only connection is that they are in the same graph, then it might
>>>> be in scope.  However, if there is some indication that the connection
>>>> is somehow special because of the some characteristic of two nodes that
>>>> are both in a particular graph, then I would say that this is out of
>>>> scope.
>>>>
>>>> It appears to me that the latter is the case.
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2014 12:42 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 12/19/2014
>>>>> 02:40:44 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>>>>> Date: 12/19/2014 02:41 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shapes as classes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S35 talks about an implicit connection between acc:AcccessContext
>>>>>> nodes
>>>>> and
>>>>>> acc:AccessContextList nodes.  This implicit connection appears to
>>>>>> me to
>>>>> be
>>>>>> outside the scope of RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>> I think this implicit connection is in scope because the concept of an
>>>>> RDF
>>>>> graph is within the scope of RDF. The implicit connection between the
>>>>> nodes is a consequence of them being in the same RDF graph. A shape
>>>>> language should let me describe a constraint such as "The graph must
>>>>> have
>>>>> exactly one node of type acc:AccessContextList, and zero or nodes of
>>>>> type
>>>>> acc:AccessContext."
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 16:37:05 UTC