Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints from Miika Alonen on 2016-03-18 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2016)

From: Miika Alonen <miika.alonen@csc.fi>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:38:34 +0200 (EET)
To: Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <785736489.5789905.1458293914900.JavaMail.zimbra@csc.fi>
Hi, 

>> sh:language or sh:languageIn 
+1 

>> sh:language or sh:languageIn on a property it would be valid if at least one of the property values matches the language. 
In addition, language constraint properties should also work with closed shapes. So if shape is closed (sh:closed true) only listed languages would be valid. 

I have a use case to validate that langString values are always present in 2 official languages. This could be expressed in Shape for example: 
ex:OrgShape
	a sh:Shape ;
	sh:scopeClass foaf:Organization; 
sh:closedShape true ;
	sh:property [
		sh:predicate foaf:name ; 
sh:uniqueLang true ; 
sh:datatype rdf:langString ; 
sh:lanquageIn ("fi" "sv") ; sh:minCount 2 ; ] ; 
... 

Best Regards, 
Miika Alonen 

CSC - IT Center for Science 
miika.alonen@csc.fi 


From: "Bart van Leeuwen" <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl> 
To: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> 
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
Sent: Friday, 18 March, 2016 10:09:25 
Subject: Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints 

Hi Holger, 

The requirement itself has already been discussed in the UCR document. 

The background for my interest is using shapes for UI generation. 
If you generate a UI from RDF data it makes sense to have the litterals displayed in the preferred user language, or to be able to indicate this is not available in the data. 
When you have a shape describing the UI constraints you can instantly find out if the data to be displayed is actually available in the language you need. 

So if I would use e.g. sh:language or sh:languageIn on a property it would be valid if at least one of the property values matches the language. 

As much as I appreciate the power of the shacl extensions as described in 6.1 I think that the language tag is such fundamental part of the RDF spec that it should be in core. 
We also have a SHACL core constraint for datatypes which are also part of the RDF spec 

Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards 
Bart van Leeuwen 

############################################################## 
# twitter: @semanticfire 
# netage.nl 
# http://netage.nl 
# Esdoornstraat 3 
# 3461ER Linschoten 
# tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
############################################################## 



From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> 
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
Date: 18-03-2016 03:16 
Subject: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints 




Hi Bart, 

could you clarify your requirement: 

1) Do you want to express that at least one of the values of a given property has a certain language tag? 

2) Do you want to express that all values of a given property have a certain language tag? 

On the question of usability, I assume you know that the example in 6.1 is not how users would typically encounter this. SHACL has the extension mechanism that allows new high-level terms to be defined, even if they missed the boat of the current SHACL Core. It would then look like 

ex:MyShape 
a sh:Shape ; 
sh:property [ 
sh:predicate rdfs:label ; 
lang:hasValueWithLang "en" ; 
] . 

assuming that someone has published a corresponding constraint component as a library with the namespace prefix "lang:" (which would be quite trivial to do and would exploit the power of the web instead of delegating everything to a committee). 

Thanks, 
Holger 


On 15/03/2016 7:51, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: 
Karen, 

I created ISSUE-137, mentioning ISSUE-35 
I guess this is the proper way to do it. 

Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards 
Bart van Leeuwen 

############################################################## 
# twitter: @semanticfire 
# netage.nl 
# http://netage.nl 
# Esdoornstraat 3 
# 3461ER Linschoten 
# tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
############################################################## 



From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
To: Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl> 
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org , Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> 
Date: 14-03-2016 22:42 
Subject: Re: rdf language tag contraints 




ISSUE-35 is closed. I think this needs to be a new issue, can refer to 
ISSUE-35 outcome, and the message is: add this functionality to the 
SHACL specification. (Arnaud, if this isn't the right procedure, pls 
advise.) 

kc 

On 3/14/16 1:45 PM, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: 
> I'll pick it up, 
> 
> it is still related to ISSUE-35 right ? 
> 
> Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards 
> Bart van Leeuwen 
> 
> ############################################################## 
> # twitter: @semanticfire 
> # netage.nl 
> # http://netage.nl < http://netage.nl/ > 
> # Esdoornstraat 3 
> # 3461ER Linschoten 
> # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
> ############################################################## 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
> To: Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl> 
> Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
> Date: 14-03-2016 21:43 
> Subject: Re: rdf language tag contraints 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we need an issue to make sure this gets discussed. I can 
> create that if you wish, or you can do it. 
> 
> kc 
> 
> On 3/14/16 9:17 AM, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: 
> > Hi Karen, 
> > 
> > Thanks for the follow up, does this mean that a constrained in SHACL 
> > should also be added ? 
> > 
> > Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards 
> > Bart van Leeuwen 
> > 
> > ############################################################## 
> > # twitter: @semanticfire 
> > # netage.nl 
> > # http://netage.nl < http://netage.nl/ >< http://netage.nl/ > 
> > # Esdoornstraat 3 
> > # 3461ER Linschoten 
> > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
> > ############################################################## 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 
> > To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
> > Date: 14-03-2016 15:44 
> > Subject: Re: rdf language tag contraints 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bart, thanks. I followed up on the history and it was indeed voted to 
> > become a requirement, but wasn't added. I will add it to the 
> > requirements list in the UC&R. 
> > 
> > kc 
> > 
> > On 3/13/16 9:46 AM, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: 
> > > Hi All, 
> > > 
> > > Seeing all the productive discussions and positive vibe on the list I 
> > > sat down and read the current Editors draft of SHACL [1] 
> > > 
> > > One of the things that strike me is that I cannot have a simple 
> > > constraint on a language tag. 
> > > 
> > > e.g. I need rdfs:label with '@en' for my application. 
> > > 
> > > I do see a example in the "Native Constraints" section [2] but that 
> > > looks rather complex for my use case. 
> > > On the issue tracker I did find ISSUE-35 [3] which resolves in 
> allowing 
> > > constraints on the language tag. 
> > > 
> > > I tried searching the mailing list archive but 'Language' is so 
> > > ambiguous that it didn't help me answer this question from the 
> archive. 
> > > 
> > > Why is the use case mentioned in Issue 35 not there any more, and 
> why is 
> > > there no simple way constraint on the language of a literal? 
> > > 
> > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ 
> > > [2] 
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#an-example-native-constraint 
> > > [3] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/35 
> > > 
> > > Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards 
> > > Bart van Leeuwen 
> > > 
> > > ############################################################## 
> > > # twitter: @semanticfire 
> > > # netage.nl 
> > > # http://netage.nl 
> < http://netage.nl/ >< http://netage.nl/ >< http://netage.nl/ > 
> > > # Esdoornstraat 3 
> > > # 3461ER Linschoten 
> > > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
> > > ############################################################## 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Karen Coyle 
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net 
> < http://kcoyle.net/ >< http://kcoyle.net/ > 
> > m: 1-510-435-8234 
> > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle 
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net < http://kcoyle.net/ > 
> m: 1-510-435-8234 
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle 
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net 
m: 1-510-435-8234 
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 18 March 2016 09:39:10 UTC