Re: shapes as classes

On 12/29/14 7:56 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> As far as I can see this is a connected example because of the
> edm:aggregatedCHO property.

I thought so too, until I saw Eric's dot diagram, which showed that they 
are actually held together by a property from the ORE ontology [1] 
called "ore:proxy", which I didn't include in this example. I was fooled 
by the fact that the IRIs all end in the same string 
("BibliographicResource_2000092034263"), but that the differences 
between them is earlier on in the path:

http://data.europeana.eu/item...
http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation...

That ORE relies heavily on naming metadata graphs as "proxies" is 
interesting in light of the discussion of "what is a thing in RDF?" The 
library and archive world has been very clear that their metadata is a 
proxy or surrogate for a much richer Real World Object, and has kept 
that Real World at arm's length. Even the representation of persons as 
creators has stopped far short of the real world: the person graph (or 
record, as it currently is) represents only the *chosen name* that will 
stand for the person in the data, and not the person him/her self. There 
is no biographical information included (dates of birth only exist to 
differentiate two persons of the same name, and other information can be 
used in place of the date). The person is not a "Resource" in library data.

All this to say that in spite of having a rich tradition of metadata in 
this community, that tradition is a great distance from the approach 
that comes from the AI activities that attempt to replicate real world 
activities.

kc
[1] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/datamodel - and which makes very 
heavy use of the term Resource, as "any item of interest", from the Web 
architecture document (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/)

>
> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

Received on Monday, 29 December 2014 19:06:12 UTC