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

Re: Bob is not a shape [Was: Re: Shapes are Classes, even if you don't use rdf:type]

From: Jerven Tjalling Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:58:07 +0100
Message-ID: <54C639DF.2080905@isb-sib.ch>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi Eric,

On 26/01/15 13:11, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Jerven Tjalling Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch> [2015-01-26 11:38+0100]
>> Hi Eric,
Brutal Snip
> I think we're actually arguing for the same solution, just factored
> slightly differently. You propose:
>
>    foaf:Person
>      rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Agent ;
>      ldom:property [
>        ## something magic here to indicate applicability of constraint ##
>        ldom:recordConstraintFor <MayoContactDatase> ;
>
>        ldom:predicate foaf:givenName ;
>        ldom:valueType xsd:string ;
>        ldom:minCount 1
>      ].
>
> I propose:
>
>    mayoHR:ContactShape
>      ldom:property [
>        ldom:predicate foaf:givenName ;
>        ldom:valueType xsd:string ;
>        ldom:minCount 1
>      ].
>
>    ## something magic here to indicate applicability of shape ##
>    <MayoContactDatase> ldom:recordStructure mayoHR:ContactShape .
>
Shapes with the something magic is ok. But if the something magic is 
required for shapes then the first version is as good. Because then

File/endpoint/service 1

foaf:Person rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Agent .

File/endpoint/service 2

foaf:Person ldom:property :personMustHaveAGivenNameInMyContactApp .
:personMustHaveAGivenNameInMyContactApp
	ldom:recordConstraintFor <MyContactApp> ;
  	ldom:predicate foaf:givenName ;
         ldom:valueType xsd:string ;
         ldom:minCount 1 .

Is practically equivalent. This becomes more apparent when we want to 
use shapes to document what data one can expect e.g. with ldom:minCount 
0. (Although I would like a ldom:requiredProperty and a 
ldom:expectedProperty)

Basically I feel that the shape resource is not needed, and as its not 
needed to meet the requirements, it should be dropped because its one 
less thing to worry about. i.e. as simple as possible.

Of course I might not see a requirement where a Shape indirection is 
absolutely required, in which case I would like to see such an 
requirement so we can think about it. I think Shapes where introduced to 
avoid the need for "something magic" but as they need them anyway their 
reason for existing has IMHO disappeared.

Regards,
Jerven

PS.
I won't reply to list until Friday at the earliest.
But I will read all replies at that time and further the discussion if 
needed.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerven Bolleman                        Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics  Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1               Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58
1211 Geneve 4,
Switzerland     www.isb-sib.ch - www.uniprot.org
Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 12:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 January 2015 12:58:37 UTC