Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

Peter,

OSLC defines specification for RDF representation of resources in several 
domains, e.g. Requirements, Quality, Change Management etc. A 
specification typically defines a class and several properties. 
Implementations are allowed to add new RDF properties but they don't 
necessarily introduce new RDF classes. Furthermore, within an 
implementation, users may add custom RDF properties on a 
project-by-project basis, but that doesn't change the RDF class. Therefore 
different projects use different Shapes but the Shapes only differ by RDF 
properties, not RDF classes. That is what I mean by decoupling Shapes and 
Classes.

I will elaborate this on the wiki.
_________________________________________________________
Arthur Ryman
Chief Data Officer
SWG | Rational
905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
IBM InterConnect 2015




From:   "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
To:     Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org, 
Date:   11/05/2014 05:27 PM
Subject:        Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations



I'm still wondering what you think it means to decouple shapes and 
classes. 
The first motivation you provide is supported by both SPIN and OWL 
constraints.  I can't figure out what custom properties have to do with 
classes, or constraints, or shapes.  The behaviour you appear to be 
looking 
for in your second paragraph is also supported by both SPIN and OWL 
constraints.

I had thought that this was ironed out at the Face-to-Face, but I guess 
not.

peter


On 11/05/2014 01:47 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> There are a few motivations for decoupling shapes and classes. One is 
that
> the creation shape may be different than the update shape. Another has 
to
> do with custom properties. I'll write up the following in the wiki.
>
> OSLC supports an open content model for resources. It is common for 
tools
> to add their own custom properties, and for projects within a tool to 
have
> different user-defined properties. For example, consider a bug tracking
> tool. Project A may add a custom property foo and project B may add bar.
> All projects use the same RDF type for bug resources, e.g.
> oslc_cm:ChangeRequest. However, the shape for resources in project A
> differs for the shape for project B.
> _________________________________________________________
> Arthur Ryman
> Chief Data Officer
> SWG | Rational
> 905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
> IBM InterConnect 2015
>
>

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 13:01:27 UTC