Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type?
Ian, I do not see the two examples you give as really contradictory. In both my rdf:type case and your oslc_rm:uses case, the oslc:Property property describes certain aspects of all occurrences of a property - it indicates the possible number of occurrences of the property, the type, range, and representation of the values of the property, etc. In human-readable text, we describe the intended use of the property, and may place further constraints on it. The only difference is that in my rdf:type case, I place an additional constraint on one of the possibly many occurrences. Suppose I have a wallet, and I want to describe constraints on its contents: the contents must be US bills only. But because I need the owner to pay for a bus ride, I require that two of the possibly many bills must be one dollar bills (ignoring here the case of the rare $2 bill). I see nothing wrong in adding that extra qualification in the descriptive text for a shape - I do not believe such text is information that "a machine would read and act upon". Where we have non-text forms for the constraints, I would agree that more precision is needed. Nick. Ian Green1 ---08/05/2015 01:41:18 AM---Hi Nick It is not the clarity of the language. That seems perfectly clear to me. From: Ian Green1 <> To: Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Martin P Pain <>, OASIS () <> Date: 08/05/2015 01:41 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? Sent by: <> Hi Nick It is not the clarity of the language. That seems perfectly clear to me. My question is about the meaning setting aside the prose - the bits a machine would read and act upon. I don't see a problem in defining the usage of rdf:type - nothing special about that property. What is troubling me is that rdf:type is multi-valued, yet the oslc:Property does not seem to have the meaning "at least one of the rdf:type values should be such and such". In contrast, the (intended) meaning of the oslc_rm:uses property, which is zero or many, is that each and every occurrence is uniformly described by the oslc:Property. So there are two different interpretations, both in use. Which one is correct, and how should the other case be expressed? best wishes, -ian (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB) IBM Nick Crossley <> wrote on 04/08/2015 17:05:26: > From: Nick Crossley <> > To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB > Cc: Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB, OASIS (- > open.org) <> > Date: 04/08/2015 17:12 > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? > > Ian, > > I would have thought that my language "A resource type URI. An > Activity MUST have a resource type of <code>oslc_config:Activity</ > code>, and MAY have other types" does not really need any special > interpretation - it seems very explicit to me. My text replaced the > phrase used in several other OSLC 3 draft specs, including change > management, which says "The resource type URIs. One of at least has > the value of <code>http://open-services.net/ns/cm#ChangeRequest</code>. > " The latter is of course not grammatically correct. > > The W3C LDP spec uses this explanation: "The representation of a > LDPC MAY have an rdf:type of ldp:Container for Linked Data Platform > Container. Non-normative note: LDPCs might have additional types, > like any LDP-RS." Would you prefer the OSLC shapes used this phrase > (with MUST rather than MAY where appropriate)? > > Or is your question more fundamental - do you think that the OSLC > Shape, using oslc:Property resources, should not include any mention > of rdf:type? If so, given that our specs now generate the resource > description tables from shapes, where would we put descriptions of > the requirements on rdf:type? Why would type be treated differently > from any other property that might have similar semantics - one > value defined by the standard, others possible for provider-specific > extensions? > > Nick. > > [image removed] Ian Green1 ---08/04/2015 08:04:41 AM---I should have > put my question differently. Where is it defined that Nick's > interpretation/usage of > > From: Ian Green1 <> > To: Martin P Pain <> > Cc: Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, OASIS (- > open.org) <> > Date: 08/04/2015 08:04 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? > > > > I should have put my question differently. Where is it defined that > Nick's interpretation/usage of oslc:Property is the one he intends? > > > best wishes, > -ian > > (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB) > IBM > > <> wrote on 04/08/2015 13:08:55: > > > From: Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB > > To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB > > Cc: Nick Crossley <>, OASIS (oslc- > > ) <> > > Date: 04/08/2015 13:09 > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? > > Sent by: <> > > > > If it's zero-or-many or one-or-many how often would you need to > > constrain all values? > > the *-or-many occurs values are the main point of extensibility - if > > the client doesn't understand all values (because others are > > extensions), it can doits best with the ones that it does understand. > > I expect there are times when you would need to - for example a > > server advertising its own resource shapes that can't handle > > unrecognised values (i.e. doesn't store everything it receives in a > > triple store), but for use in the specs I expect leaving it open > > would be the default. > > > > Just my thoughts... > > > > > > > > > > > Martin Pain > > Software Developer - Green Hat > > Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel > > > > Phone: +44 (0)1962 815317 | Tie-Line: 37245317 > > E-mail: > > Find me on: [image removed] and within IBM on: [image removed] > > > > [image removed] > > > > > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with > > number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, > > Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU > > > > > > > > From: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB > > To: Nick Crossley <> > > Cc: OASIS () <oslc- > > > > > Date: 04/08/2015 13:04 > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage > > of rdf:type? > > Sent by: <> > > > > > > > > I've not noticed it being used with this interpretation. So how > > would one define a Property which covered all occurrences of a > > multi-valued property? > > > > > > > > > > best wishes, > > -ian > > > > (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB) > > IBM > > > > <> wrote on 30/07/2015 14:43:06: > > > > > From: Nick Crossley <> > > > To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB > > > Cc: OASIS () <oslc- > > > > > Date: 30/07/2015 14:43 > > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage ofrdf:type? > > > Sent by: <> > > > > > > Ian wrote: > > > > > > In https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc- > > > ccm/trunk/specs/config-mgt/activity-shapes.ttl the rdf:type of and > > > oslc:Activity is described: > > > > > > <#acttype> > > > a oslc:Property ; > > > oslc:name "type" ; > > > oslc:propertyDefinition rdf:type ; > > > oslc:occurs oslc:One-or-many ; > > > oslc:readOnly true ; > > > oslc:representation oslc:Reference ; > > > oslc:valueType oslc:Resource ; > > > dcterms:description """A resource type URI. An Activity MUST > > > have a resource type of <code>oslc_config:Activity</code>, > > > and MAY have other types."""^^rdf:XMLLiteral . > > > > > > rdf:type is multi-valued but the description made by <#actype> is > > > particular to exactly one of those values, not all of them (I assume > > > that is the intention). > > > Yes, that is the intention. It is common for OSLC shapes to define > > > one or more of the required rdf:type values but leave it open for > > > others to be applied. > > > > > > Nick. > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > number 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > number 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Next in thread →
Next in month →