Re: Shape Selectors

Hi Karen,

Shape selectors are entirely about addressing how to connect a shape to 
a class for the use cases where a connection is needed. Thus, reading 
about them will not give you any information on how to use LDOM to 
define constraints that are not class-specific.

Constraints  and data validation is a complex technical topic. Similar 
in complexity to SPARQL and OWL specifications. I have tried to be as 
clear as possible. There is the LDOM model. There are examples.

It would help if you pointed out paragraphs and sections in SPARQL and 
OWL documentation (since they are comparable in terms of the technical 
complexity) that make their documentation more accessible to you than 
the LDOM primer. This would give me some ideas on how to best improve 
the document to address your needs.

Regards,
Holger


On 2/13/2015 1:03, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I guess I don't know what to ask at this point. First, did I miss the 
> link to the ldom ontology that would clarify the meaning of the ldom 
> classes and properties here? That would be a start.
>
> I still don't see in here a way to address properties or groups of 
> properties that are not defined as a class. I also cannot understand 
> if this solution expects that shapes must be coded as such in the 
> instance data. I can say that I expect to be working with instance 
> data that is unaware of intended validation, and therefore the nature 
> of (the shape of) the data itself must be sufficient.
>
> Spelling out those aspects would be very helpful. Any single example 
> is just a single example, and doesn't show the full extent of the 
> functionality. Examples are helpful to show a single instance of what 
> you are describing, but they are not in themselves descriptive because 
> each example shows only one possible case.
>
> kc
>
> On 2/11/15 9:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>> I have added two preamble paragraphs that may help set the stage of what
>> is intended.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shape_Selectors
>>
>> Please follow up with questions if you have any.
>>
>> HTH
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 2/12/2015 9:42, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Holger, I find this to be a bit sparse of explanations. I know that
>>> it's easier to produce code than lots of verbiage, but I, for one,
>>> would appreciate a more ample natural language description of what is
>>> intended.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 2/10/15 3:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> I have just pushed a new "meta" feature to the LDOM system vocabulary
>>>> that can be used to represent which properties shall be used to drive
>>>> the LDOM engine. This is an attempt to formalize and generalize the
>>>> issue of classes-vs-shapes into a solution that everyone could live
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the details:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shape_Selectors
>>>>
>>>> I believe this offers the maximum flexibility so that platforms can 
>>>> pick
>>>> which properties (such as oslc:instanceShape/oslc:classShape) they 
>>>> would
>>>> like to use. This approach allows applications to pick whether they 
>>>> want
>>>> backward-compatibility with RDFS classes or use stand-alone shapes, or
>>>> even both!
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 00:50:41 UTC