Re: shapes as classes

* Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> [2014-12-20 08:22-0800]
> 
> 
> 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?

Running this through dot (attached), it seems like this includes a
couple bibliographic resources (uh oh, "resources"!) which proxy for a
third. This seems to be a well-connected graph. Arthur's example is of
data which has no connections apart from some implied by being in the
same package.

<X> a <Foo> .
<Y> a <Foo> .
<Z> a <FooList> .

The presence of something of type FooList appears to trigger some
special processing which kicks off a search for <Foo>s (and possibly
whines if there aren't any). Arthur, is that right?

I'm not confident this is a good idea, but to try it out, I mocked up
a notion of a conomitant shape:

[[
  start= {
    a (oslc:AccessContextList),
    CONCOMITANT @<ContextShape>+
  }
  
  <ContextShape> {
    a (oslc:AccessContext),
    dc:description xsd:string,
    dc:title xsd:string
  }
]]
with a questionable RDF representation:
[[
    rs:property [
        rs:name "???" ;
        se:concomitantShape true ;
        rs:valueShape <ContextShape> ;
        rs:occurs rs:One-or-many ;
    ] ;
]]

http://w3.org/brief/NDI4


> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 

-- 
-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.