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
