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: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 01:16:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CANfjZH02XxtjMKs7GSGDBvnbpO7DEdXcA__p9tXimJjtN+K6FQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 8, 2015 9:09 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com> 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.

The above description of formats and protocols seems orthogonal to the
point below that there are some use cases for constraints across a
disconnected graph. Perhaps you wanted to emphasize something about how,
because json-ld caters to conventional JSON users, some relationships in
the graph may be implied by the fact that the triple were carried in a
single protocol exchange.

> 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.

The last line described this like an accepted requirement. Also,
"constraints on general RDF graphs" is wide open (total number of triples,
labels must all start with 'q', equal numbers of predicate1 and
predicate2). I propose to strike it.

You may be able to replace with something like "this use case depends on
shapes capturing X" but I don't know what X is. Cardinality constraints on
shapes for which the matching instance data is not connected?

What makes an acc:AccessContextList invalid? No nodes of type
acc:AccessContext? Some node of type acc:AccessContext that doesn't have a
title? Is this different from validating twice, once for nodes of type
acc:AccessContextList and once nodes of type acc:AccessContextList and once
for nodes of type  acc:AccessContext?

> [1]
> _________________________________________________________
> 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
> 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 06:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 January 2015 06:17:17 UTC