Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues - issue-92

On 1/26/14 1:07 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 1/25/14 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>> If we have a comprehensible description of the :profile relation, I 
>>> am sure I can easily construct something sensible in RDF.
>>>
>>> I wish I understood what the "profile" relation is supposed mean in 
>>> the context of data interaction. Personally, I see this as basically 
>>> being a flag, so a subPropertyOf relation can work when the super 
>>> property in question is utterly superfluous. 
>>
>> In addition, why are we debating a relation (i.e., 
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction>) that doesn't even exist in 
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp> ? Assuming this is a work-in-progress 
>> relation, where is the document that actually describes said using RDF?
>>
>> We are trying to indicate the interaction modality for a specific 
>> kind of document at an address.
>>
>> Roughly describe, in haste as:
>>
>> <>
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>
>> :hasInteractionModality :ModalityX .
>>
>> :ModalityX
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> :InteractionModality ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema##label> "Resource Interaction 
>> Modality X" ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> :interactionModality .
>>
>> :InteractionModality
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema##label> "Class that determines 
>> Web Document Interaction Modality" ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class>;
>> is <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> of 
>> :hasInteractionModality .
>>
>> :hasInteractionModality
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property>;
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "hasInteraction Modality" ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """relationship 
>> predicate (property) that determines Web document interaction 
>> modality via HTTP""" ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain> 
>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container> ;
>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> :InteractionModality . 
>
> Bug fixed version of the above:
>
> ## ABox -- statements describing <>
> <>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container> ;
> <#hasInteractionModality> <#ModalityX> .
>
> # statements describing :ModalityX
>
> <#ModalityX>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
> <#InteractionModality> ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema##label> "Resource Interaction 
> Modality X" .
>
>
> ## TBox -- statements describing/defining :InteractionModality Class
> # uses "is of" syntax sugar to express ranges relation re., 
> :hasInteractionModality .
>
> <#InteractionModality>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class>;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema##label> "Class that determines 
> Web Document Interaction Modality" ;
> is <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> of 
> :hasInteractionModality .
>
> ## RBox -- statements describing the :hasInteractionModality 
> relationship predicate/property i.e., the
> # :hasInterqctionModality relation
>
> <#hasInteractionModality>
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> 
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property>;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "hasInteraction Modality" ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """relationship 
> predicate (property) that assoicates a Web document with an 
> interaction modality (this would be an HTTP based interaction)""" ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain> 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container> ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <#InteractionModality> .
>
> # association with the predicate/property 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction> via owl:equivalentProperty 
> relation
>
> <#hasInteractionModality>
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#equivalentProperty> 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction> ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#rdfs:subPropertyOf> 
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#profile> 
> .
>
> # 
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#profile> 
> entity relationship predicate description
> # this description/definition includes a super property relation 
> expressed "is of" syntax sugar.
>
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#profile> 
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "Interation Modality" ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """Relation that 
> indicates that a resource (Document or Document Collection or 
> something else) has an interaction modality property)""" ;
> is <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf> of
> <#hasInteractionModality> ;
> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/references> 
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>, 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906> .
>
> # <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction> entity relationship predicate 
> description
> # speculatively includes an rdfs:isDefinedBy relation which
> # indicates that this relation should be part of the vocabulary 
> denoted by the URI <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>
>
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction>
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "LDP Container (Document 
> Collection) Interation Modality" ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """Relation that 
> indicates that an LDP resource has an interaction modality property)""" ;
> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy> 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
>
>
> Links:
>
> [1] 
> http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/Public/Linked%20Data%20Documents/InteractionModality.ttl 
> -- live document.
>
I've just read today's minutes, I note:

[[
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by changing rel=type to rel=profile for client 
introspection of interaction model
]]

I am proposing the use of both rel=type and rel=profile as a solution to 
this problem. The detailed Turtle based description in my post basically 
triangulates to  the very point i.e., using one relation to establish 
the resource type and another to establish interaction modality.

Please digest what I've outlined, its how we can satisfy different 
developer profiles (i.e., RDF lite and RDF heavy).

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen