Re: shapes as classes

So http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl is not correct?  That graph is connected.

If http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl is not correct, then what is the correct 
setup?

peter


On 12/29/2014 11:05 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 29 December 2014 20:12:12 UTC