RE: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

This part of http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/ Section
3.3 seems to be pretty unambiguous:

Literal term equality: Two literals are term-equal (the same RDF literal) if
and only if the two lexical forms, the two datatype IRIs, and the two
language tags (if any) compare equal, character by character. Thus, two
literals can have the same value without being the same RDF term. For
example:

      "1"^^xs:integer
      "01"^^xs:integer
    
denote the same value, but are not the same literal RDF terms and are not
term-equal because their lexical form differs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:28 PM
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Arnaud Le Hors
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux; public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

Peter,

One of us is misinterpreting the specs. I'd like others to weigh in. 

Arnaud, Perhaps we could put this on the agenda for tomorrow.
_________________________________________________________
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, 
Cc:     "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   11/11/2014 07:59 PM
Subject:        Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations



You can disagree all you want, but "1"^^xsd:integer and "01"^^xsd:integer do
indeed represent different nodes in any RDF graph.  To see this all you have
to look at is the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/ Section 3.3, which
talks about literal term equality, and Section 3.1, which says that the
triples of RDF objects can be literals.

Neither datatypes nor the RDF model theory nor what an RDF literal
represents affect this aspect of RDF graphs.

peter



On 11/11/2014 02:00 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I disagree with your assertion that "1"^^xsd:integer and
"01"^^xsd:integer
> represent different RDF nodes. Please refer to [1] and [2]
>
> A datatype consists of a lexical space, and value space, and a 
> lexical-to-value mapping. Several strings in the lexical space may map
to
> the same element of the value space.  An RDF literal that includes a 
> datatype URI represents the value, i.e. the lexical-to-value mapping 
> is applied to the lexical string.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#literals-and-datatypes
> _________________________________________________________
> 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, "Eric Prud'hommeaux"
> <eric@w3.org>,
> Cc:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date:   11/10/2014 10:54 AM
> Subject:        Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations
>
>
>
> RDF graphs are defined without respect to XML datatypes.  For example,
> "1"^^^xsd:integer and "01"^^xsd:integer are different as far as RDF 
graphs
> are
> concerned.
>
> Of course, there is a close relationship between these two literals, but
> that
> is (mostly) defined in the RDF semantics.
>
> So is it then the case that OSLC goes beyond RDF graphs?
>
> peter
>
>
> On 11/10/2014 07:38 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Yes. RDF includes the built-in XML datatypes.
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Arthur Ryman
>> Chief Data Officer
>> SWG | Rational
>> 905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
>> IBM InterConnect 2015
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:   "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
>> To:     "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>,
>> Cc:     Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>> Date:   11/07/2014 08:46 AM
>> Subject:        Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations
>>
>>
>>
>> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-11-06
>> 20:36-0800]
>>> So your view is that all that counts is the graph?  Nothing about
>>> datatypes, or RDF, or RDFS?
>>
>> I suspect that OSLC wants datatypes, noting that Resource Shapes has
>> an oslc:valueType predicate for identifying the datatype of a literal.
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/#valueType
>>
>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/06/2014 12:01 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Commenting on your proposed wording of how to express the 
"decoupling"
>>>> requirement. I'd go further and demote the notion of class to being
>> more
>>>> like just another property and view the shape/constraints as applying
>> to
>>>> the RDF representation of an information resource, i.e. to a set of
>>>> triples (aka an RDF graph). Some of the triples will have rdf:type as
>> the
>>>> predicate and those triples are useful for locating certain subject
>> nodes
>>>> that we want to say more things about, e.g that they are the subjects
>> of
>>>> triples that have certain other predicates, etc.
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> 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,
>>>> Cc:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>>> Date:   11/06/2014 12:14 PM
>>>> Subject:        Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC
> Motivations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still don't know what "custom" means here with respect to RDF.  As
>> far
>>>> as I
>>>> can tell any bit of an ontology, or class, or property, or 
constraint,
>> or
>>>> shape could be called "custom".  Now it may be that within OSLC there
>> is
>>>> some
>>>> notion of custom vs non-custom, but how can that notion be removed
> from
>>>> OSLC
>>>> so that it can be used elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, the notions of "specification", "implementation",
> "project",
>>>> etc.,
>>>> appear to me to be specific to OSLC, and particular to the design
>>>> methodology
>>>> you outline below, and using them to drive a spec could, I think, tie
>> that
>>>>
>>>> spec quite closely to the design methodology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a contrast, here is what I believe should be used to say that
>> classes
>>>> and
>>>> shapes/constraints are decoupled.
>>>>
>>>> Definition:  Classes and shapes/constraints are decoupled if the
>>>> specification
>>>> can use different sets of shapes/constraints on the same class.  For
>>>> example,
>>>> if the specification permits the ontology
>>>>      ex:Person rdf:type rdfs:Class .
>>>>      ex:name rdf:type rdf:Property .
>>>>      ex:name rdfs:domain ex:Person .
>>>> to be used with the constraint set
>>>>      ex:Person < exists ex:name
>>>> (every person has a "known" value for its name)
>>>> or used with the constraint set
>>>>      ex:Person < all ex:name xsd:string
>>>> (all "known" names of people are strings)
>>>> then it will be said to allow the decoupling of constraints/shapes 
and
>>>> classes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A stronger notion would be that shapes/constraints are independent of
>>>> classes.
>>>>     This could be defined as:
>>>>
>>>> Definition:  Classes and shapes/constraints are independent if some
>>>> shapes/constraints do not use class membership in their definition.
> For
>>>> example, the following constraint is class-independent:
>>>>      exists ex:name < exactly 1 ex:name
>>>> (if something has a "known" name then it has exactly one "known" 
name)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2014 04:59 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>>> 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 Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:55:20 UTC