W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: shapes-ISSUE-19 (S35 not RDF): S35 appeals to something that is not RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:32:22 -0800
Message-ID: <54AF3DB6.3070201@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The issue that I raised has to do with the possibility that S35 appeals to 
something that is outside of RDF.

Given the response to ISSUE-18, this does not appear to be the case.  So maybe 
this issue has been resolved


However, the response below does not appear to address ISSUE-19.

peter


On 01/08/2015 12:08 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> I have updated the wiki [1] with the following additional text:
>
> This user story is motivated by Linked Data and how information resources
> are created (e.g. via HTTP POST) or modified (e.g. via HTTP PUT). In these
> situations, the body of the HTTP request has an RDF content type (RDF/XML,
> Turtle, JSON-LD, etc.). The server typically needs to verify that the body
> of the request satisfies some application-specific constraints. If the
> request does not satisfy the constraints them it will fail the request and
> respond with 400 Bad Request or some similar response.
> This user story draws attention to the fact that RDF content is in general
> a graph. The concept of RDF graph is defined in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph. A general RDF
> graph may not be connected and in fact disconnected RDF graphs do appear
> in real-world Linked Data specifications. Therefore, the output of this
> workgroup must support the description of constraints on general RDF
> graphs, connected or not.
> [1]
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S35:_Describe_disconnected_graphs
> _________________________________________________________
> Arthur Ryman, PhD
> Distinguished Engineer | Master Inventor | Academy of Technology
> Chief Data Officer
> SWG | Rational
> 905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
> IBM InterConnect 2015
>
>
>
>
> From:   "RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker"
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
> To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date:   12/19/2014 01:17 PM
> Subject:        shapes-ISSUE-19 (S35 not RDF): S35 appeals to something
> that is not RDF
>
>
>
> shapes-ISSUE-19 (S35 not RDF): S35 appeals to something that is not RDF
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/19
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product:
>
> S35
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S35:_Describe_disconnected_graphs
> talks about a containment relationship that is implicit because a node is
> in a graph.  This appears to be outside the scope of RDF.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 9 January 2015 02:32:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 January 2015 02:32:53 UTC