Re: using classes to control constraints

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-02-10 04:27-0800]
> 
> 
> 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.

I believe they're the most direct example of how business process
constraints differ from ontological constraints. My business process
may require exactly one email address for a customer in the orders
database, but those sharks over in marketing may keep every email
address they've ever seen for you in order to better meet your spam
needs. The myCo:Customer has n email addrs; its use in Orders has 1.


> > 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"

I'm sympathetic to the intent, but I expect resistance from folks who
want to drive user interfaces or advertise data with shapes.  I think
that defining the validation behavior addresses all of the other needs
but we also want folks to reallize that we're meeting them.


>  and limit "instance" to where you are
> talking about instances of classes, using "object" or "node" elsewhere.

done


> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 13:48:54 UTC