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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:26:17 -0800
Message-ID: <54B70929.8050407@gmail.com>
To: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The problem is that some of S9 appears to be asking for a constraint that 
states that a contract can have a property value for its end date.  This is 
different from the ICV constraint provided for bonds, which requires a 
specified value for the end date.

What would a constraint that required that it was possible to have a value for 
a property look like?  What would it mean?


On 01/09/2015 03:41 PM, Dean Allemang wrote:
> The issue that S9 is about (as Peter outlines here
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S9:_Contract_time_intervals)
> is that it should be possible to add constraints in subclasses where none
> existed above.  The ICV example on that page seems to address this quite
> directly; at one level, it doesn't represent a constraint, while at the next
> level down, it does.  The meaning of this might not be fully clear - I have
> added a paragraph to the description on the Stories page that I hope clarifies
> it.  Basically, it seems to me that the ICV code has got it right.
> So, far from being impossible, it seems that there is a solution presented
> right on the wiki.
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:10 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:
>     shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values
>     http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/11
>     Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>     On product:
>     Story S9
>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S9:_Contract_time_intervals
>     appears to require constraints that state that a property has a value but
>     this value is not specified in the graph.  Do any proposals cover this
>     requirement?  Is this a constraint at all?
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 00:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 15 January 2015 00:26:49 UTC