- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:58:20 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5551F8EC.3070206@openlinksw.com>
On 5/12/15 8:18 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote: > Kingsley, > > On Monday, May 11, 2015 9:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> >We have to be careful here. RDF Language sentences/statements have a >> >defined syntax as per RDF Abstract Syntax i.e., 3-tuples organized in subject, >> >predicate, object based structure. RDF Shapes (as far as I know) has nothing to >> >do with the subject, predicate, object structural syntax of an RDF >> >statement/sentence. Basically, it's supposed to provide a mechanism for >> >constraining the entity type (class instances) of RDF statement's subject and >> >object, when creating RDF statements/sentences in documents. Think of this as >> >having more to do with what's regarded as data-entry validation and control, in >> >other RDBMS quarters. > The charter of the data shapes WG [1] says that "the product of the RDF Data Shapes WG will enable the definition of graph topologies for interface specification, code development, and data verification", so it's not_only_ about validation etc. My understanding is that it's somewhat similar to XML schema and thus is essentially a description of the graph structure. As such, it can of course be used for validation, but that is only one purpose. Terms from a vocabulary or ontology do not change the topology of an RDF statement represented as graph pictorial. Neither do additional statements that provide constraints on the subjects and objects of a predicate. It is still going to be an RDF 3-tuple (or triple). > >> >The function of the "profile" I believe you (and others that support this) are >> >seeking has more to do with enabling clients and servers (that don't necessarily >> >understand or care about RDF's implicit semantics) exchange hints about the >> >nature of RDF document content (e.g., does it conform to Linked Data >> >principles re. entity naming [denotation + connotation] ). > No, my use of "profile" is really a "shape" in the sense of the data shapes wg. Some of their motivations are what I'm envisioning, too, e.g. > > * Developers of each data-consuming application could define the shapes their software needs to find in each feed, in order to work properly, with optional elements it can use to work better. > * Developers of data-providing systems can read the shape definitions (and possibly related RDF Vocabulary definitions) to learn what they need to provide > >> >Cut long story short, a "profile" hint is about the nature of the RDF content (in >> >regards to entity names and name interpretation), not its shape (which is >> >defined by RDF syntax). > OK, I stand corrected: My question is: How can clients and servers negotiate shape information? RDF data has one shape. Use of terms from a vocabulary or ontology don't change the shape of RDF document content. "Profiles" are a means of representing preferences. Seeking terms from a specific vocabulary or ontology in regards to RDF document content is an example of a preference. You can use "rel=profile" as a preference indicator via HTTP message exchanges between clients and servers. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: 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 Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 12:58:43 UTC