Re: shapes as classes

Thanks, Eric. The visualization really helps. I can now see that what 
holds these two together is in the "proxy" statements, and that I wasn't 
noticing the subtle differences in the URIs. (Also, I do wish that the 
ORE proxy were a bit more amply defined. [1]) I'm not sure what makes a 
package a package in Arthur's case. Arthur?

kc
[1] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/datamodel.html#Proxies

On 12/23/14 9:35 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * 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
>>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2014 19:06:31 UTC