- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 04:29:53 -0800
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Some glitch picked up extra cc's for this message. Everyone except Eric is likely to be lacking a lot of context. peter On 02/10/2015 04:27 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > On 02/10/2015 03:59 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > [...] > >> 3/ There is some wording that introduces the notion of verifying that >> sufficient information is present so that useful things can be done >> with > >>> the >> RDF data. > >>> I think I can address this with a "record class" as described in >>> <http://www.w3.org/2015/02/shapes-article/> (many thanks for your >>> feedback on that document). > > Better but I still don't understand why you are picking on > cardinalities. > > >> 4/ A set of constraints/shapes are given whose effect is that if the >> data correctly validates the bug instances do indeed have sufficient >>> information. >> These constraints/shapes are triggered off the bug class. > >>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html#associations >>> >>> > >>> now includes a whole slew of associations with shapes, > > > That's looking better. I would change the section heading to something > more like "Controlling Shape Validation" and limit "instance" to where > you are talking about instances of classes, using "object" or "node" > elsewhere. > > > > the first of >>> which is ldom:instanceShape, second is ldom:classShape (editorially >>> made sense in that order). > >>> [[ clinic:PatientRecord a owl:Class ; ldom:classShape [ >>> ldom:property [ ldom:predicate clinic:phone ; ldom:valueType >>> xsd:string ; ldom:minCount 1 ; ldom:maxCount 1 ] ] . ]] > >>> Is that good enough for an FPWD to tell the world what we're up to? > > >> I believe that this example satisfies all your desiderata above. > >> peter > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2fnAAAoJECjN6+QThfjzHJcH/19jNebEVBTb5elzeSfvNUz9 BU3eP9eW+2m4wqxLxD80uWuBp7o9zHY6LUE1YhY4wPlA8tW6w3H8qJOTblUOmL6M nClpQVQD1+CDoIias5EIFDNiX36CG5F1PzCne+u9abn+x7yhkx0iyPiFuJQYAkt8 +qQRkhd43WdzgtMvMDNjblITsOk3J5kvpa8fjnAR5ymtOELl0ewtCwEoZbPXT95Q vqjnJXdRvGfCQC0XEuGn0v7Q1B+Yrf6SkgWfKhX9FkollKSlbTeHaAXR3J4rZa1s GDI746Ujb1jzXM1/CBKSaa62u1Ody973qEtPq5k9RuCzdPAB/IAsKjIn+512Xuc= =uBGl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 12:30:22 UTC