- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:03:03 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 2/16/15 2:58 AM, Jerven Tjalling Bolleman wrote: > Problem: IRI's are global, shapes are local (or should be) as nicely > illustrated in this example by Karen. > > http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 > ldom:hasShape ex:bookShape ; > dct:title "Moby Dick" ; > dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ; > dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" . > > I think Karen is right and that this is a "wrong" assertion. > I believe it should be asserted as something like this. > > http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 > ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ; > ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; > ldom:dataContext <> ]; > dct:title "Moby Dick" ; > dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ; > dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" . No, actually, the original example is correct. My point is that my desire to validate data does not translate into the data creator's knowledge of my validation rules. There may be dozens of different validation rules being applied to the same data by different users. Think about making use of LOD data from a variety of sources who are unaware of your use. I already have many linked data sources that need to be combined for some of my functions. I am not operating within only my own enterprise data. Some of this is data like above; some of it is SKOS data. There are vocabularies and re-usable graphs that are provided globally and used by hundreds of different systems. And, precisely, shapes must be inferred in some cases. kc kc > > But then it could be this as well > > http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 > a [ rdfs:subClassOf ex:bookShape ; > #subclass or type is both ok for me > ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; > ldom:dataContext <> ]; > dct:title "Moby Dick" ; > > i.e. the choice for using the shape or class word does not make a > difference. Also in both cases these would be classes per Peter's > definition. As shape/class membership is asserted and not inferred. > > Side effects of asserting a ldom:dataContext is that such a context > description can then have a cryptographic signature. e.g. > > > http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 > ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ; > ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; > ldom:dataContext [ ex:tripleSHA512 > "259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" ; > ex:pgpsignature ex:signer <mailto:example@example.org> > ec:signature "259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" > ] ]; > > And the shape membership can then also be signed. > In other words, introducing a level of indirection between a resource > and a "shape" allows lots of nice features and removes a lot of objections. > > Regards, > Jerven > On 16/02/15 11:00, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/14/15 9:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >> The question is only sensible if one already assumes RDFS >> or OWL >> >semantics. Outside of RDFS/OWL semantics, resources can >> do all these >> >things without being classes. >> >> OK, so replace RDF classes with "RDF types in RDF and RDFS >> classes in >> RDFS". The point is whether documents will contain triples that >> use shapes >> where there are now RDF type or RDFS classes. >> >> >> >> If instance data will use shapes where they now use RDF, how would >> you fulfill the requirements implied in User Story #4 [1] where the >> same node in a graph can serve multiple roles? Or in general how do >> you address re-usability of your data in different contexts? >> >> >> Shapes does not solve this problem, maybe postpone it a bit [1] until >> when/if they get further adopted. In the same way one can use different >> "shapes" at different contexts, one can use different class constraints >> at different contexts. >> >> [1] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0198.html >> >> >> >> kc >> [1] >> >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-__shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:___Issue_repository >> >> >> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_Issue_repository> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dimitris Kontokostas >> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig >> Research Group: http://aksw.org >> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 15:03:31 UTC