Thomas, it probably is helpful, but it will be clearer when it's with
real data, not just "test-1". ;-) Does this mean, though, that the
current requirements need to be re-coded for this data?
kc
On 7/28/14, 9:15 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added another view on requirements:
>
> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=requirements/dc-requirements
>
> On this site, all requirements are listed which are assigned to the
> requirements category ‘Dublin Core requirements’.
>
> (So far, only test requirements are assigned…)
>
> Is this view helpful?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
> --
>
> Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
>
> PhD student
>
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
>
> Social Science Metadata Standards
>
> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
>
> Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
>
> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
>
> Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
>
> Web: http://www.gesis.org <http://www.gesis.org/>
>
> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
>
> GitHub: _https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD_
>
> *Von:*DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Im Auftrag von *Eric Prud'hommeaux
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014 14:04
> *An:* [log in to unmask]
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: AW: OWL is hard?
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2014 12:31 PM, "Antoine Isaac" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> >
> >
> >> One possibility would be to have an additional category in the left
> sidebar 'Dublin Core Requirements' (I added it already, but can delete
> it if not wished).
> >> That would be the fastest and easiest solution.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
> This is good for several reasons:
>
> You can track evolving ideas on the Shapes list.
>
> The W3C process can leverage your diligence.
>
> You can exercise your editorial power to provide humorous labels for
> the foreign input.
>
> It's a win all around (except that you end up doing a lot of work). Many
> thanks.
>
> >> I can also add an additional view on requirements which are only
> associated with the requirements class 'Dublin Core Requirements'.
> >> This view could be accessed with an additional sub-menu entry
> 'Dublin Core Requirements' (or something similar) under the requirements
> main menu entry.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It sounds good, but inf act I'm not sure I can see what the end
> result (UI) would be!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/14 12:10 PM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
> >> PhD Student
> >> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> >> Social Science Metadata Standards
> >> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
> >> Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
> >> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
> >> Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
> >> Web: http://www.gesis.org
> >> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
> >> GitHub: https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> Von: Bosch, Thomas
> >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014 12:04
> >> An: DCMI Architecture Forum
> >> Betreff: AW: AW: OWL is hard?
> >>
> >> Hi Antoine,
> >>
> >> I see your point.
> >>
> >> One possibility would be to have an additional category in the left
> sidebar 'Dublin Core Requirements' (I added it already, but can delete
> it if not wished).
> >> That would be the fastest and easiest solution.
> >>
> >> Is this solution what you expected?
> >> Dies this fit your requirement?
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> This makes me think about a potential feature to consider for the
> database. Can we had something to distinguish between the requirements
> that are originated from the DC task group work from the ones discussed
> on the W3C list?
> >>
> >> I know that the link between cases and requirements allow us to find
> the list of "Dublin Core" requirements. But there is no shortcut to get
> requirements that are connected to all DC cases, in one go. [1]
> >>
> >> Why am I asking this? Honestly, I find that what is happening on the
> W3C list is really good to stimulate people around the creation of the
> work. But from a design process perspective, it's a real nightmare. All
> these emails are fired with no grounding on real cases (I'm not saying
> they're not legit, just that there is no explicit relation with real cases).
> >>
> >> I'd like our work in the task group not to be polluted by this. If
> you can entertain the noise, that's great. But I don't have the time,
> and I suppose many people on the DC task group won't have either.
> >>
> >> Besides, if the W3C group starts, the requirements will probably be
> tracked through a W3C issue system. And those issues will probably be
> quite strictly controlled, i.e. only approved requirements connected to
> use cases will be kept there. I would regard this as a good practice for
> us too.
> >>
> >> Again, I'm not requesting that you wouldn't introduce the W3C list
> requirements in your DB. You created it, it would be unfair for us to
> dictate its use. What I'd like is that at any moment we can say 'ok,
> this is our curated data, and this is the explorative stuff from
> others'. If we can't do it, I'm afraid the DB won't be usable by the group.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >>
> >> [1] I believe there must be a way to get a requirement listing it
> quite easily.
> >> What I'm wondering is whether this can be applied to the facets on
> the left menu. I believe these need to work on the entire requirement
> database.
> >>
> >> On 7/27/14 10:31 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Simon,
> >>>
> >>> I added this requirement to the RDF validation requirements db:
> >>>
> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=R-190-SPECIFY-EXPECTED-BEHAVIOR-UNDER-ALL-POSSIBLE-ENTAILMENT-REGIMES
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
> >>>
> >>> PhD Student
> >>>
> >>> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> >>>
> >>> Social Science Metadata Standards
> >>>
> >>> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
> >>>
> >>> Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
> >>>
> >>> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
> >>>
> >>> Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
> >>>
> >>> Web: http://www.gesis.org
> >>>
> >>> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
> >>> GitHub: _https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD_
> >>>
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -
> >>
> >> --
> >>>
> >>> *Von:* Simon Spero [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. Juli 2014 22:43
> >>> *An:* Kendall Clark
> >>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>> *Betreff:* Re: OWL is hard?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Kendall Clark
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> foaf:Person class,
> >>> foaf:name 1 1,
> >>> foo:email 1 1,
> >>> foo:phone 0 * .
> >>>
> >>> Some Manchester syntax (again corrections welcome)
> >>>
> >>> Class: foaf:[P]erson
> >>> foaf:name exactly 1
> >>> foo:email exactly 1
> >>> foo:phone min 0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure exactly what constraint is being specified on on
> foo:phone in the original example.
> >>>
> >>> The informal description is about a web service which requires
> that "all resources submitted to it must be of type foaf:Person, must
> have a foaf:name and a foo:email, and possibly one or more foo:phone".
> >>>
> >>> a) If the intended meaning of the final clause is that the
> cardinality of foo:phone is between 0 and infinity, then it is trivial.
> >>>
> >>> b) If the intended meaning of the final clause is to serve purely
> as documentation then it is not really a constraint.
> >>>
> >>> c) If the intended meaning of the entire phrase is that it is to be
> construed using /expressio unius
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual>/, then
> the final clause /is/ necessary, because any predicates not explicitly
> mentioned are forbidden. Under this interpretation,
> >>>
> >>> Example 1 is valid:
> >>> 1)
> >>>
> >>> [ a foaf:Person ;
> >>>
> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
> >>>
> >>> foo:email
> "[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
> >>> ].
> >>>
> >>> But:
> >>>
> >>> *2)
> >>>
> >>> [ a foaf:Person,foaf:Agent ;
> >>>
> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
> >>>
> >>> foo:email
> "mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
> >>> ].
> >>>
> >>> ... is invalid, because it includes a value for rdf:type even
> though that value is entailed by the foaf Ontology.
> >>> A similar problem could occur if there were sub or
> super-properties of foo:email - e.g. if there were sub properties for
> officialEmail and personalEmail, or if there were a super property
> contactURL.
> >>>
> >>> Also:
> >>> *3)
> >>>
> >>> [ a foaf:Person ;
> >>>
> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
> >>>
> >>> foo:email
> "[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
> >>>
> >>> foaf:gender "male";
> >>>
> >>> ].
> >>>
> >>> ... is invalid, because foaf:gender is not explicitly mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> Any specification that implements this approach must specify
> expected behavior under all possible entailment regimes.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure if it is possible to specify in OWL the constraint
> that the maximum cardinality for all properties apart from a
> specifically mentioned set is 0 (it is probably doable in SPARQL as
> long as entailment regimes are handled carefully).
> >>>
> >>> It would not be too hard to define OWL constructs that could serve
> this purpose if the CWA is in effect- e.g. pseudo-properties like
> 'otherObjectProperties' and 'otherDataProperties', or even
> 'otherProperties'. This kind of pseudo-property would probably not be
> suitable for use in inferencing.
> >>>
> >>> Simon
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|