Re: Designing my vocabulary

Hello Martynas,

What can be represented in RDF that cannot be represented in JSON-LD?

Regards,
James


On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:11 PM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

> Fair enough, you can pretend JSON-LD is just JSON with annotations.
> But you will not be able advantage of RDF's features if you try to
> ignore the triple model behind it and only work with surface syntax.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:51 PM James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Martynas,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:59 AM Martynas Jusevičius <
> martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> the common case is instances having a property with a value and the
> >> "schema" defining a constraint (using SHACL, SPIN etc.) for that
> >> property with the range of valid values. How would you enforce the
> >> constraint if there was no such distinction and the constraints were
> >> part of instance data?
> >
> >
> > As I and you already noted, this is not the correct path to follow. The
> concept and implementation of an enforceable constraint should exist
> outside of instances.
> >
> >> I don't think your SHACL example uses the actual range constraints.
> >> "4.3 Value Range Constraint Components" looks like what you need:
> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#core-components-range
> >
> >
> > I did not attempt to provide a SHACL example.
> >
> >>
> >> I'd also suggest to use Turtle for your examples, to get away from the
> >> overhead of the JSON-LD syntax and get closer to triples.
> >
> >
> > As a mere practitioner of this stuff, I am going to stay as far away
> from Turtle and triples as I can, dealing with them only when I have to. It
> is easier to sell json to people, which looks "normal" than it is to sell
> stuff that looks like triples, which most have never seen before and would
> be confused by. This is a marketing challenge to me as much as a technical
> one.
> >
> > Regards,
> > James
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:47 PM James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Since I hate mailing lists threads which just end without any
> resolution or summary, I wanted to add what I learned, primarily in
> conversation with Adam K, in case others are interested now or later.
> >> >
> >> > Based on my research into this topic there appears to be two
> reasonable solutions. Perhaps one solution is more reasonable then the
> other.
> >> >
> >> > One key is to recognize that constraints exist as a concept outside
> of the instance of a class and should be outside of the actual instance
> data.
> >> >
> >> > The first solution is to adopt https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. It is a
> W3C recommendation and supported project. It provides a well defined,
> generic, and powerful system for applying constraints to properties. There
> are standard libraries which implement SHACL which provide enforcement for
> free. The caveat here is that adopting SHACL may provide more power and
> flexibility than is needed by a project and the overhead of maintaining
> Shape files may not be worthwhile. Whether this is an issue will only be
> known with time and experience as the technology is new.
> >> >
> >> > The second solution follows this general model:
> >> >
> >> >     {
> >> >       "@id": "http://my-company.org/chanceOfSuccess",
> >> >       "@type": "rdf:Property",
> >> >       "http://schema.org/domainIncludes": {
> >> >         "@id": "http://my-company.org/Event"
> >> >       },
> >> >       "http://schema.org/rangeIncludes": {
> >> >           "@id": "http://schema.org/QuantitativeValue"
> >> >       },
> >> >       “ex:chanceMinValue” : “30”,
> >> >       “ex:chanceMaxValue” : “60”,
> >> >       "rdfs:comment": “Allow values are only 30-60.",
> >> >       "rdfs:label": “chanceOfSuccess with range 30-60"
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> > In this case, we declare the property and as part of that
> declaration, the constraints are encoded. How these constraints are defined
> and enforced is up to the particular project using the objects. At a
> minimum, code needs to be written which may not be available outside of the
> project to enforce the constraints.
> >> >
> >> > The SHACL solution is the one I will be going with for now.
> >> >
>