Re: Two Standards ?

Harold,
  Indeed, I don't think we want a trivial implementation in RDF.
  In our HyQUE project [1], we capture scientific hypotheses (and their
parts) by instantiating an OWL ontology, and use SPIN to define data
retrieval and evaluation rules, and represent the results of the evaluation
in RDF along with the links to the data and evidence used. I can use SPARQL
to query for the evidence linked to any part of the hypothesis, and
retrieve the linked data.
  I want the same granularity for constraints. I'd like to compose a new
shape by mixing shared constraints, and make that freely available for
other to use and to validate with. I want people to who make derivatives to
indicate how they did so using the provenance ontology, for instance, and
so that we have an audit of shape evolution.

m.

[1] http://hyque.semanticscience.org/

Michel Dumontier, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
Stanford University
http://dumontierlab.com

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Solbrig, Harold R. <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu
> wrote:

>  Michael,
>
>  >> Our shapes should be representable in RDF, so we can identify them
> with URIs, make them part of the Linked Data sphere,  and query them using
> SPARQL.
>
>  This raises a couple of questions.  The first is, what sort of things
> *aren't* representable in RDF?  What sort of things should/can we not do
> in our semantics and representation syntax that would violate this
> requirement?
>
>  The second is more just to get an idea what you've got in mind…
> <IssueShape> a shape;
>        sh:expr "<IssueShape> { # An <IssueShape> has:
>
>     ex:state (ex:unassigned ex:assigned), # state which is
>                                           #   unassigned or assigned.
> }"^^xsd:String.
>
> Meets all of the requirements stated above.  Hopefully it is not what you were actually asking for.  What aspects need to be linked and queried?
>
>
> Harold Solbrig
>
>
>
>   From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>
> Date: Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:01 PM
> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Two Standards ?
> Resent-From: <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM
>
>   There's no doubt that this question needs to be discussed. It's
> important to have a solution that will broadly generalize to apply
> constraints to some graph pattern in an target RDF graph. I am simply not
> convinced that we should be splitting our efforts at this point.
>
>    I don't agree that OO people will not understand how to deal with
> shapes that place restrictions on other object or data patterns - there's
> nothing complicated or bewildering about it. I do believe that reasoning
> should be part of the picture in evaluating constraints, after all, we have
> terms coded in ontologies to consider. Our shapes should be representable
> in RDF, so we can identify them with URIs, make them part of the Linked
> Data sphere,  and query them using SPARQL.
>
> m.
>
>  Michel Dumontier, PhD
> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
> Stanford University
> http://dumontierlab.com
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The upcoming F2F meeting is supposed to deliver the general direction,
>> select editors and deliverables [1]. I don't think my proposal here is
>> premature at all. In fact it touches on the very fundamental questions that
>> Peter suggested we discuss too.
>>
>> Holger
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F2#Objectives
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/15 7:03 AM, Michel Dumontier wrote:
>>
>> I think all this discussion premature and counter to the intended focus
>> of this WG. Stay focused on delivering the promised outcomes.
>>
>> m.
>>
>>  Michel Dumontier, PhD
>> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics)
>> Stanford University
>> http://dumontierlab.com
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Holger Knublauch <
>> holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My concern is not about personal preferences, but about language(s) that
>>> end users will actually want to use. We already struggle to understand
>>> shapes versus classes within the WG. The separation that I propose would
>>> allow us to write two different primers that will be consistent to
>>> understand and use.
>>>
>>> If the charter does not give us the possibility to define two standards,
>>> then this becomes a matter of packaging. One approach is to introduce a
>>> small Abstract Syntax for the commonality between LDOM and ShExC. This may
>>> include something like the Shape Selectors, but not in RDF but "abstract".
>>> Another option would be to define a compiler from ShExC into LDOM RDF and
>>> back (I had proposed that before [1] without getting feedback). Both
>>> concrete syntaxes could still have a similar name, if that helps with the
>>> standardization process.
>>>
>>> I also assume that WGs are still allowed to slightly diverge from the
>>> original Charter if they justify their reasons for doing so - at least that
>>> is what I was told when we wrote the original charter. I believe the
>>> discussions over the last half year (and potentially another half a year
>>> well into 2015) provide some of those reasons. Also, producing a Compact
>>> Syntax has been mentioned in the charter.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0223.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/14/15 5:07 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think there is evidence yet that a common solution can't be
>>> found. Yesterday's strawpoll tells me there is hope we can find some common
>>> ground to build on to produce a standard that we can all live with. This
>>> may not be anyone's personal preference but standards are typically not.
>>>
>>> It may be that eventually some will seek to define other standards but
>>> this won't happen here. Our charter doesn't give us that possibility.
>>> --
>>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
>>> IBM Software Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:        Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
>>> <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
>>> To:        Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
>>> <holger@topquadrant.com>
>>> Cc:        RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>>> <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>>> Date:        02/12/2015 08:08 PM
>>> Subject:        Re: Two Standards ?
>>> Sent by:        deanallemang@gmail.com
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been talking about Shapes with my FIBO colleagues - we continue
>>> to face the expressivity issues around OWL (role intersections and friendly
>>> fire seem to come up a lot for us).  We are moving in to things like
>>> SPIN/SWRL, and/or FIBO-RIF(a proposal that I worked on  last July that
>>> moves everything into a subset of RIF) to solve our expressivity issues.
>>> We are currently going to do all of this in Informative Annexes (as opposed
>>> to normative recommendations), because we don't (yet) have a good standard
>>> in which to write these things.
>>>
>>> An expressive shapes language, based on SPARQL, would satisfy our
>>> group's needs quite well.
>>>
>>> I wonder a bit about the relationship between the two languages that
>>> Holger proposes - is it important that we be able to define how a ShEx
>>> shape corresponds to an LDOM definition?  Or are they being used in
>>> completely different places?  I guess if we take the XSD/RelaxNG example,
>>> there needn't be a deterministic relationship between them.
>>>
>>> Looking back, it seems to me that it would have been a good thing if
>>> RELAX-NG had been done through the auspices of the W3C instead of OASIS.
>>> As it stands now, it seems as if one has to choose one's standard
>>> organization to support one's technology.  If we simply recognize that
>>> there could be two different perspectives and develop both standards, we
>>> could actually provide coherent (non-competitive) advice about when each
>>> one should be used.  If we don't, and the other perspective has an
>>> audience, we'll end up seeing it pursued in some other organization.  Ugh.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prima facie, it would seem like we are doubling our work, but I don't
>>> think that's the case. As Holger said, each group has done enough work now
>>> to write up a coherent spec.  It would actually be *more* work to try to
>>> reconcile them into a single Recommendation.
>>>
>>>
>>> This situation seems to me to be a bit different from the profiles of
>>> OWL, where we use the same words with different constraints on their
>>> usage.  Here, we are solving parallel problems with different mechanisms.
>>> Making two standards, that are well-informed by one another, seems like a
>>> good idea to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Holger Knublauch <
>>> *holger@topquadrant.com* <holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>> A random thought before the week end:
>>>
>>> Can this WG (please!) produce two separate standards?
>>>
>>> 1) An RDF vocabulary similar to the original LDOM proposal
>>> 2) The ShEx Compact Syntax aiming at the data reuse scenarios
>>>
>>> We already have RDF Schema. We already have OWL. We would already have a
>>> third language (LDOM or whatever). Why not have a forth language?
>>>
>>> The situation in very similar to XML Schema vs. DTD. vs RELAX-NG. They
>>> all solve similar problems, but from different perspectives.
>>>
>>> We are currently trying to mix different paradigms together and risk
>>> producing something that nobody will be happy with. People with OO
>>> background will wonder what the fuzz is about this parallel structure
>>> called "Shapes", raising the implementation costs and creating a mix of
>>> parallel semantic webs. And ShEx people don't want to worry about the
>>> interactions of the various triple models at all - instead have the ShExC
>>> files live outside of the triple store. And that makes sense because even
>>> if you introduce ldom:instanceShape to separate shapes from classes, you'd
>>> still run into conflicts with other ShEx models that also happen to use
>>> ldom:instanceShape. The only proper solution here is to not have triples in
>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> Another constant source of conflict will be the role of SPARQL. The ShEx
>>> camp seems to be more concerned about the balance of expressivity and
>>> complexity, while the SPIN camp has plenty of use cases where expressivity
>>> is the main concern. Furthermore, a SPIN-like LDOM can more easily be
>>> combined with existing RDFS and OWL ontologies, filling gaps in that space.
>>>
>>> We have a handful of ShEx supporters in the WG. I am sure they could
>>> turn their Member Submission into a formal spec quite rapidly. From an LDOM
>>> point of view we have plenty of stuff already implemented, and I'd be happy
>>> to wrestle and collaborate with anyone to flesh out the open details. The
>>> Requirements document is already being split into "Property constraints"
>>> and "Complex constraints", so both camps can harvest from the same catalog
>>> of requirements. We can also share test cases and produce a small document
>>> explaining how to map from one language to another. But the aforementioned
>>> reasons and the endless discussions over the last half a year provide
>>> plenty of arguments that justify why the WG chose to create two languages.
>>>
>>> Why would this separation of deliverables not work?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>