Re: Shapes, Individuals, and Classes - OSLC Motivations

On 11/19/2014 9:12, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Holger Knublauch <> [2014-11-06 09:42+1000]
>> Hi Arthur,
>> I am looking forward to seeing this worked out as a specific
>> example. Currently I don't see why named graphs would not cover your
>> use cases.
> I suspect that by "named graphs" you mean using named graphs as a way
> to perform course-grained instantiation and revocation. In Arthur's
> example, this would mean when dealing with project A, load a named
> graph that provides some constraints for an object. When dealing with
> project B, throw away that first named graph and load another with
> constraints for the same object. How does one deal with both at the
> same time?

To deal with both contexts, just keep the named graphs separate at 
execution time. In Arthurs example, project A calls the CreationFactory 
servlet with one context, while project B calls it with another context. 
The CreationFactory assembles the graph that it needs *for this 
transaction* while the other transaction uses a different configuration 
of graphs by creating different union graphs and import closures. Why 
should they merge both graphs together? Transaction A would not even 
know anything about Transaction B. These are controlled environments, 
not "The (global) Semantic Web".


>> This topic is crucial to discuss exhaustively because it sits at the
>> very foundation of the differences between ShEx/Resource Shapes and
>> Holger
>> On 11/6/2014 7:47, 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 Tuesday, 18 November 2014 23:21:57 UTC