Re: Constraints on classes

Thanks, Peter. I think my use case goes beyond this one, because this 
one is defined as a simple selection by type[1], and I need to actually 
constrain types:

- in relation to each other (and/or/not)
- using cardinality

I think this needs to be a "complex constraint" similar to the complex 
constraints that are defined for properties. We could expand this 
requirement, or, if it seems to be a better idea, we could expand the 
complex constraints on property to include either property or type. Then 
again, there is the possibility of a separate requirement. ? Comments?

kc
[1] " R12.2: Selection by Type

     It should be possible to have some mechanism to select the nodes 
that are instances of some class for validation. "



On 4/24/15 7:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I believe that approved requirement 2.12.2
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Selection_by_type
> covers these situations.   User story S2 is based on selection by type.
>
> Both SPIN and Stardog ICV can do this, as can both of the SPARQL-based
> proposals.  I don't believe that Shape Expressions can do this without having
> bare negation.  As far as I can tell, Resource Shape 2.0 can't do this,
> although I  remain confused as to how Resource Shape 2.0 works.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 04/24/2015 06:56 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> I've been trying to understand if this is covered by existing requirements o
> r
>> not...
>>
>> The Dublin Core set of requirements for application profiles (including
>> validation)[1] has some constraints based on classes (read: rdf:type) not
>> properties. For example,
>>
>> - For every node/graph of type edm:CHO there must also be a linked node/grap
> h
>> of type ore:Aggregation.
>>
>> - For every node/graph of type ex:Book there can be 0..n linked nodes of typ
> e
>> ex:Author, but no nodes of type ex:Composer.
>>
>> I asked this many moons ago and was assured that it was included in the
>> existing requirements, but if it's there I haven't identified it. Is this
>> covered, or do I need to add a story+requirement proposal?
>>
>> BTW, we are doing an analysis comparing the DCMI requirements with this
>> group's requirements. This is one of the more significant gaps.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> kc
>>
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requiremen
> ts
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVOlVSAAoJECjN6+QThfjzVq8H/0E5ptRsd9gT73GjkJE+7Sg/
> 2FBITkAJfBxZ89H3v9cj/hwptYQtXTcfmq4uCRLwJprSajR0bhrgy3jPV8X5o2rc
> eLbo276P6sNcNi9jQPEbf4v2BBjHkxkR87shn7Afx1I4fOeLsYEb86ijpBP7M4bz
> gYQySx1tehTQrJwAXPkshdk/4nOTIIYQt9Qoxy59IAFMTWRed6P9ojAUpPnCWYZm
> i25QhywLydtBEPjQ1Yx70h1+ZI7NHP3k/D20poPazKJ5FwirCoKgex0OVrf3Z6Us
> 3ISuCBdQkCRQprnsGivg5EyG01bdLIJQokPQDC6jimvmwDlbaOt/k9hFaFysxKQ=
> =uOIV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

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

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 15:54:41 UTC