- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:06:33 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I can think of these use cases: 1. literal must have a language tag - any language tag 2. literal must have a specific language tag 3. literal must have one of a list of language tags The more difficult one is: 4. there must be n properties, each with one of a list of language tags, no repeats, e.g. you must have 3 SKOS preflables, one each @en @sp @fr There may be others, that's what's off the top of my head. kc On 3/18/16 1:09 AM, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: > 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 <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_ <http://netage.nl/> > # Esdoornstraat 3 > # 3461ER Linschoten > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 > ############################################################## > > > > From: Karen Coyle _<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>_ <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > To: Bart van Leeuwen _<bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>_ > <mailto:bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl> > Cc: _public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org_ > <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>, Arnaud Le Hors > _<lehors@us.ibm.com>_ <mailto: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/><_http://netage.nl/_> > > # Esdoornstraat 3 > > # 3461ER Linschoten > > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 > > ############################################################## > > > > > > > > From: Karen Coyle _<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>_ <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > > To: Bart van Leeuwen _<bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>_ > <mailto:bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl> > > Cc: _public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org_ <mailto: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/_><_http://netage.nl/_> > > > # Esdoornstraat 3 > > > # 3461ER Linschoten > > > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 > > > ############################################################## > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Karen Coyle _<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>_ <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > > > To: _public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org_ > <mailto: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/_><_http://netage.nl/_> > > > > # Esdoornstraat 3 > > > > # 3461ER Linschoten > > > > # tel. +31(0)6-53182997 > > > > ############################################################## > > > > > > -- > > > Karen Coyle > > > _kcoyle@kcoyle.net_ > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net><http://kcoyle.net/>_http://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_ <mailto: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_ <mailto: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 16:06:37 UTC