Re: shapes as classes

As far as I can see this is a connected example because of the 
edm:aggregatedCHO property.

peter


On 12/20/2014 09:05 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> This isn't my data, so what you're getting here is my understanding of the
> model and the rules. The rule that needs to be applied is that for every
> "record" there must be one edm:ProvidedCHO (by rdf:Type) and at least one
> ore:Aggregation (by rdf:Type). It looks to me like these are the relevant "bits":
>
> <http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263>
>      a edm:ProvidedCHO .
>
> <http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation/europeana/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263>
>      edm:aggregatedCHO <http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263> ;
>      a ore:Aggregation .
>
> In the RDF/XML this reads as:
>
>   <edm:ProvidedCHO
> rdf:about="http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263"/>
>
> ...
>    <ore:Aggregation xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/"
> rdf:about="http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation/provider/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263">
>
>    </ore:Aggregation>
>
> As I said below, EDM uses RDF/XML, and there is the concept of a "record" in
> the sense of a beginning and end and that "record" has an identifier (here
> ending in "263"). Other than sharing that URI, the ProvidedCHO and Aggregation
> have no direct links to each other that I can find. To me, this makes a graph,
> and I don't know if this is what is meant below by: "in the same information
> resource".
>
> kc
>
> On 12/20/14 8:36 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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 Monday, 29 December 2014 15:56:42 UTC