* Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask]> [2014-10-05 14:52+0000]
> Hi Eric,
>
> that's a good idea to re-classify the RDF validation requirements.
> I also think the current classification has too many levels and is too detailed and needs re-thinking.
> I like your way you would classify the existing requirements, thank you very much!
You're quite welcome!
> If the W3C WG decides to use the requirements DB we could create a new requirements taxonomy.
I'm also wondering about re-naming some of the definitions which are strictly copies of OWL functional syntax. For instance, saying that an object restriction "requires the object to be in a value set" would probably speak to a larger audience.
> We could keep the existing taxonomy as long as we have finalized the comparison of the existing and the revised requirements classification.
>
> What I could do is to create a new taxonomy (when there is general agreement) and to create a new field for requirements for the relationships to the new requirements classification.
> When the migration is finished I can delete the old requirements taxonomy.
>
> Also, would you like to add your examples to the examples section of the individual requirements?
That would be great. I think that having examples in a few syntaxes will make these more meaningful to people whom we want to contribute (including many from DC).
> Cheers,
> 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: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014 18:29
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [RDF AP] review of requirements database
>
> I reply with WOW!, and vow to spend time trying to get my head around it
> all.
>
> Thank you very much, Eric!
>
> Perhaps in an upcoming call of the group we can put aside some time to
> hear from you re: how you see this relating to ShEx and the W3C work. I
> assume you'll be busy the week of the W3C technical meetings, so perhaps
> you could suggest a good time?
>
> thanks again,
>
> kc
>
> On 10/4/14, 9:15 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > I worked through the requirements at
> > http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=requirements/requirements-detailed
> > and am extremely impressed by the work you all have done!
> >
> > In an effort to contribute, I classified by some different (and
> > mutually exclusive) categories:
> > high-level language requirements: meta requirements about the language.
> > modularization/import: ability to include bits of constraints and schemas.
> > ui generation: annotations etc. to generate UIs (plus usability stuff).
> > reasoning/inference: things that only seemed to me to do inference.
> > RDF target constructs: what in RDF we want to constrain
> > expressivity - algebraic: conjunction, disjunction, etc.
> > expressivity - lexical patterns: catch "2014-10-BOGUS-DT"^^xsd:dateTime.
> > expressivity - value sets: one or more possible values for an object.
> > expressivity - cardinality: like regex ?+*{2,5} .
> > expressivity - negation: exclusions of some constructs above.
> > expressivity - other: higher-level functions on object value.
> > expressivity - multi-record: mutual consistency between records.
> > protocol/invocation: how validations get run and reported.
> > implementability: what's required to implement validation.
> > translations: expression in other execution languages.
> > outreach: spec niceties to make it attractive to community
> >
> > I flagged some possible overlaps with (R-103?) and (specialization of
> > R-112?).
> >
> > I don't know what to do with the strict inferences. I couldn't see how
> > they by themselves were validation requirements. I can imagine some of
> > them could contribute to triggers for validation but they seem like
> > more a means to an end rather than the end themselves.
> >
> > I've stuck hints, mostly from ShExC, in [[]]s. (I stole the one for
> > R-66 from the database.) The ones for multi-record are written in
> > SPARQL. These aren't strictly accurate but help get the idea across.
> >
> > high-level language requirements:
> > R-101-DECLARATIVE-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE
> > R-102-INTUITIVE-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE
> > R-195-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-EASY-TO-CONSUME-BY-TOOLS
> > R-103-HIGH-LEVEL-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE
> > R-176-PROVIDE-HIGH-LEVEL-VOCABULARY-FOR-THE-MOST-COMMON-TYPES-OF-CONSTRAINTS (R-103?)
> > R-184-COMPACT-CONCRETE-SYNTAX
> > R-106-EXTENSIBLE-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE [[ %sparql{ ?s ex:reportedOn ?rpt . FILTER (?o > ?rpt) %} ]]
> > R-112-EXTENSIBLE-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-186-EXTEND-EXPRESSIVITY-WITH-SPARQL (specialization of R-112?)
> > R-104-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-HAVING-IMPLEMENTATION-LANGUAGE
> > R-105-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-TRANSLATABLE-TO-IMPLEMENTATION-LANGUAGE
> > R-117-CONTEXT-SENSITIVE-CONSTRAINTS [[ <Issue> { ex:reportedBy @<UserShape>, ex:reproducedBy @<EmployeeShape> } ]]
> > R-118-NAMESPACE-SENSITIVE-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-121-SPECIFY-ORDER-OF-RDF-RESOURCES (e.g. ordinals on Resource Shapes)
> > R-125-RDF-SHAPE-CHECKING
> > R-127-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-169-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE
> > R-128-HUMAN-UNDERSTANDABLE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATING-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-129-MACHINE-UNDERSTANDABLE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATION-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-130-CONCISE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATING-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-132-MULTIPLE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATING-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-67-CLASSIFY-PROPERTIES-ACCORDING-TO-OCCURRENCE (must, may, should)
> > R-72-RECOMMENDED-PROPERTIES (R-67?)
> > R-135-CONSTRAINT-LEVELS (must, may, should) (R-67?)
> > R-193-MULTIPLE-CONSTRAINT-VALIDATION-EXECUTION-LEVELS (R-67?)
> > R-149-MANAGEMENT-OF-CONSTRAINT-SCHEMA-EVOLUTION
> > R-161-ACCEPTABLE-PERFORMANCE-OF-VALIDATION-ALGORITHM
> > R-168-PERFORM-BIG-DATASETS
> > R-182-USE-KNOWN-CONCRETE-SYNTAX
> >
> > modularization/import: [[RelaxNG: external "pattern1.rnc"]]
> > R-136-MODULARITY-OF-CONSTRAINT-DEFINITIONS (#include)
> > R-144-BY-REF-OR-BY-VAL-PROPERTIES
> > R-145-INTEROPERABLE-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-147-DISTRIBUTION-OF-CONSTRAINT-SCHEMAS (addressable schemas)
> > R-148-DISTRIBUTED-VALIDATION-IN-COLLABORATIVE-ENVIRONMENTS (addressable constraints)
> > R-174-REUSE-CONSTRAINTS (R-148?)
> > R-99-STABLE-IDENTIFICATION-OF-CONSTRAINTS (R-148?)
> >
> > ui generation:
> > R-139-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-DRIVES-USER-INTERFACE-FORM-GENERATION-AND-PRESENTATION
> > R-124-DESCRIBE-DATA (annotations)
> > R-134-SPECIFY-USAGE-OF-TERMS (annotations)
> > R-192-DEFINE-ANNOTATIONS-FOR-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-172-GENERATE-HUMAN-READABLE-DOCUMENTATION
> >
> > reasoning/inference:
> > R-113-INTERACTION-OF-VALIDATION-WITH-REASONING
> > R-198-RDF-VALIDATION-AFTER-INFERENCING
> > R-100-SUBSUMPTION
> > R-3-EQUIVALENT-CLASSES
> > R-4-EQUIVALENT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-5-EQUIVALENT-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-6-EQUIVALENT-INDIVIDUALS
> > R-26-DATA-PROPERTY-DOMAIN
> > R-35-DATA-PROPERTY-RANGE
> > R-25-OBJECT-PROPERTY-DOMAIN
> > R-28-OBJECT-PROPERTY-RANGE
> > R-31-DEFAULT-VALUES-OF-RDF-OBJECTS
> > R-38-DEFAULT-VALUES-OF-RDF-LITERALS
> > R-54-SUB-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (subPropertyOf)
> > R-55-OBJECT-PROPERTY-PATHS (subPropertyOf ObjectPropertyChain)
> > R-56-INVERSE-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (owl:ObjectInverseOf)
> > R-58-INVERSE-FUNCTIONAL-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (InverseFunctionalObjectProperty)
> > R-59-REFLEXIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (ReflexiveObjectProperty)
> > R-89-SELF-RESTRICTION (like R-59 with OPE)
> > R-60-IRREFLEXIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (IrreflexiveObjectProperty)
> > R-61-SYMMETRIC-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (SymmetricObjectProperty)
> > R-63-TRANSITIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (TransitiveObjectProperty)
> > R-64-SUB-DATA-PROPERTIES (SubDataPropertyOf)
> > R-86-EXISTENTIAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-87-UNIVERSAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-88-INDIVIDUAL-VALUE-RESTRICTION-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-90-EXISTENTIAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-91-UNIVERSAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-94-POSITIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS
> > R-95-POSITIVE-DATA-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS
> > R-190-SPECIFY-EXPECTED-BEHAVIOR-UNDER-ALL-POSSIBLE-ENTAILMENT-REGIMES
> >
> > RDF target constructs:
> > R-119-VALIDATION-ON-NAMED-GRAPHS
> > R-120-HANDLE-RDF-COLLECTIONS
> > R-24-PROVENANCE-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-47-LANGUAGE-TAG-MATCHING
> > R-133-MULTIPLE-CONCRETE-SYNTAXES-FORMULATING-DATA (comes for free with RDF, or is this about DSPs?)
> >
> > expressivity - algebraic:
> > R-15-CONJUNCTION-OF-CLASS-EXPRESSIONS [[ foaf:giveName LITERAL , foaf:familyName LITERAL ]]
> > R-16-CONJUNCTION-OF-DATA-RANGES (What's that mean under UNA?)
> > R-17-DISJUNCTION-OF-CLASS-EXPRESSIONS [[ foaf:giveName LITERAL | foaf:familyName LITERAL ]]
> > R-18-DISJUNCTION-OF-DATA-RANGES [[ ex:status (ex:unassigned ex:assigned) ]]
> > R-7-DISJOINT-CLASSES (Do these ↓↓↓ mean anything with UNA?)
> > R-8-DISJOINT-UNION-OF-CLASS-EXPRESSIONS
> > R-9-DISJOINT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-11-DISJOINT-DATA-PROPERTIES-CLASS-SPECIFIC
> > R-12-DISJOINT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES-CLASS-SPECIFIC
> > R-13-DISJOINT-GROUP-OF-PROPERTIES-CLASS-SPECIFIC
> > R-14-DISJOINT-INDIVIDUALS
> >
> > expressivity - lexical patterns:
> > R-21-IRI-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-SUBJECTS
> > R-23-IRI-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-PROPERTIES [[ .-dc:creator-dc:date LITERAL ]]
> > R-22-IRI-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-OBJECTS [[ med:coding loinc:~-loinc:Systolic:Qn ]]
> > R-46-CONSTRAINING-FACETS (literal constraints by XML Schema facets)
> > R-44-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-LITERALS (regular expressions)
> > R-45-RANGES-OF-RDF-LITERAL-VALUES [[ med:systolic ucum:mmHg ]]
> > R-50-WHITESPACE-HANDLING-OF-RDF-LITERALS (no whitespace, or none at beginning/end)
> > R-51-HTML-HANDLING-OF-RDF-LITERALS (no HTML tags)
> > R-98-CHECK-VALIDITY-OF-URIS (http:///example.com/)
> > R-194-PROVIDE-STRING-FUNCTIONS-FOR-RDF-LITERALS (length, startsWith)
> >
> > expressivity - value sets:
> > R-30-ALLOWED-VALUES-FOR-RDF-OBJECTS [[ ex:status (ex:assigned ex:unassigned) ]]
> > R-37-ALLOWED-VALUES-FOR-RDF-LITERALS [[ ex:status ("assigned" "unassigned") ]]
> > R-32-MEMBERSHIP-OF-RDF-OBJECTS-IN-CONTROLLED-VOCABULARIES [[ med:coding (loinc:Systolic:Qn loinc:Systolic:Qn) ]]
> > R-39-MEMBERSHIP-OF-RDF-LITERALS-IN-CONTROLLED-VOCABULARIES [[ med:coding ("12345-67" "76543-21") ]]
> > R-92-LITERAL-VALUE-RESTRICTION (R-37?)
> >
> > expressivity - cardinality:
> > R-80-EXACT-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition @my:WingPos{4} ]]
> > R-81-MINIMUM-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition @my:WingPos{2,} ]]
> > R-82-MAXIMUM-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition @my:WingPos{,4} ]]
> > R-83-EXACT-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition LITERAL{4} ]]
> > R-84-MINIMUM-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition LITERAL{2,} ]]
> > R-85-MAXIMUM-UNQUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES [[ bug:wingPosition LITERAL{,4} ]]
> > R-74-EXACT-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-75-MINIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-76-MAXIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
> > R-77-EXACT-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-78-MINIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-79-MAXIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
> > R-49-RDF-LITERALS-HAVING-AT-MOST-ONE-LANGUAGE-TAG
> > R-65-FUNCTIONAL-DATA-PROPERTIES (FunctionalDataProperty) [[ ex:status . ]] [[ ex:status .{1} ]]
> > R-66-PROPERTY-GROUPS (all or nothing) [[ ( ex:reproducedBy @, ex:reproducedOn xsd:dateTime ) ? ]]
> > R-71-CONDITIONAL-PROPERTIES (superset of R-66?)
> > R-68-REQUIRED-PROPERTIES [[ ex:status . ]] [[ ex:status .{1} ]]
> > R-69-OPTIONAL-PROPERTIES [[ ex:status .? ]] [[ ex:status .{0,1} ]]
> > R-70-REPEATABLE-PROPERTIES [[ ex:related .* ]] [[ ex:status .{0,} ]]
> >
> > expressivity - negation:
> > R-19-NEGATION-OF-CLASS-EXPRESSIONS
> > R-20-NEGATION-OF-DATA-RANGES [[ med:status .-med:deceased ]]
> > R-33-NEGATIVE-OBJECT-CONSTRAINTS (R-20?)
> > R-52-NEGATIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTY-CONSTRAINTS [[ !ex:obsolescenceRecord @<ObsRec> ]]
> > R-96-NEGATIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS (R-52?)
> > R-200-NEGATIVE-LITERAL-CONSTRAINTS (R-52?)
> > R-53-NEGATIVE-DATA-PROPERTY-CONSTRAINTS [[ !ex:obsolescenceDate xsd:dateTime ]]
> > R-97-NEGATIVE-DATA-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS (R-53?)
> > R-142-NEGATIVE-RANGES-OF-RDF-LITERAL-VALUES
> > R-141-NEGATIVE-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-LITERALS
> > R-48-MISSING-LANGUAGE-TAGS
> >
> > expressivity - other:
> > R-41-STATISTICAL-COMPUTATIONS
> > R-42-COMPUTATIONS-BASED-ON-DATATYPE
> > R-43-COMPARISONS-BASED-ON-DATATYPE
> >
> > expressivity - multi-record:
> > R-2-UNIQUE-INSTANCES (HasKey) [[ { ?s :k1 ?o1 ; :k2 ?o2 } MINUS { ?s2 :k1 ?o1 ; :k2 ?o2 } FILTER (?s != ?s2) ]]
> > R-57-FUNCTIONAL-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (FunctionalObjectProperty) [[ { ?s :k1 ?o1 } MINUS { ?s2 :k1 ?o1 } FILTER (?s != ?s2) ]]
> > R-62-ASYMMETRIC-OBJECT-PROPERTIES (AsymmetricObjectProperty) [[ { ?s :p1 ?o1 } MINUS { ?o1 :p1 ?s } ]]
> >
> > protocol/invocation:
> > R-114-PROVIDE-RDF-REST-SERVICES-FOR-RDF-VALIDATION
> > R-126-CUSTOMIZABLE-VALIDATION-PROCESS
> > R-143-CONDITIONAL-TYPED-VALIDATION (engage by rdf:type)
> > R-191-SHAPES-RELATED-TO-TYPES (R-143?)
> > R-197-ATTACH-CONSTRAINTS-TO-CLASSES (R-143?)
> > R-27-CLASS-SPECIFIC-VALIDATION
> > R-29-CLASS-SPECIFIC-RANGE-OF-RDF-OBJECTS
> > R-36-CLASS-SPECIFIC-RANGE-OF-RDF-LITERALS
> > R-146-CONSTRAINT-VALIDATION-OF-RDF-INPUT-WITH-RESPECT-TO-EXISTING-RDF (operate over DB)
> > R-150-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-VALIDATION-RESULTS
> > R-153-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS (subset of R-150?)
> > R-151-USEFUL-MESSAGE-VALIDATION-RESULTS
> > R-189-ADD-ANNOTATIONS-TO-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATION-OBJECTS
> > R-152-FIND-NOT-VALIDATED-TRIPLES (related to closed shapes)
> > R-155-GUIDANCE-HOW-TO-BECOME-VALID-DATA
> > R-156-REFERENCES-TO-TRIPLES-CAUSING-THE-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS
> > R-157-REFERENCES-TO-VALIDATION-RULES-CAUSING-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS
> > R-158-SEVERITY-LEVELS-OF-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS
> > R-159-EXPLAIN-REASONS-OF-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS
> > R-166-RDF-STREAMING-VALIDATION
> > R-167-VALIDATE-RDF-IN-AN-HTML-DOCUMENT-CONSTAINING-RDFA-MARKUP
> > R-178-ASSOCIATE-CONSTRAINTS-WITH-VOCABULARIES
> > R-179-ASSOCIATE-CONSTRAINTS-WITH-RDF-DOCUMENTS
> > R-180-ASSOCIATE-CONSTRAINTS-WITH-RDF-DATASETS
> > R-181-ASSOCIATE-CONSTRAINTS-WITH-RDF-REST-APIS
> > R-185-FEDERALIZED-RDF-VALIDATION (@@ federated)
> >
> > implementability:
> > R-137-LEVERAGE-ON-EXISTING-TECHNOLOGIES
> > R-138-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-COMPATIBLE-WITH-SPARQL
> > R-188-EXPRESSIVITY-OF-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-EQUIVALENT-TO-SPARQL (R-138?)
> > R-199-RDF-VALIDATION-MUST-COMPILE-DOWN-TO-SPARQL (R-138?)
> > R-131-OWL-AS-CONCRETE-SYNTAX-FORMULATING-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-170-VALIDATION-OF-SPARQL-ENDPOINTS
> >
> > translations:
> > R-107-TRANSFORMATIONS-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-AND-UML
> > R-108-TRANSFORMATIONS-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-AND-XML-SCHEMA
> > R-109-TRANSFORMATIONS-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-AND-OCL
> > R-110-TRANSFORMATIONS-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE-AND-SPARQL
> >
> > outreach:
> > R-162-SPECIFICATION-PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE
> > R-163-IMPLEMENTATION-EXISTS
> > R-164-IMPLEMENTATION-PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE
> > R-165-EXECUTABLE-DEMOS-EXAMPLES-USE-CASES
> >
> > @@unclassified@@
> > R-93-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINTS-ON-OBJECT-AND-DATA-PROPERTIES (what differences are desirable?)
> > R-111-BASIC-USE-CASES-COVERED-BY-CONSTRAINT-LANGUAGE
> > R-115-CLOSED-WORLD-ASSUMPTION-CWA
> > R-116-UNIQUE-NAME-ASSUMPTION-UNA
> > R-122-TRADE-OFF-BETWEEN-DIMENSIONS-EXPRESSIVITY-COMPLEXITY-PREDICTABILITY
> > R-123-STATE (??)
> > R-140-SEPARATE-ONTOLOGIES-FROM-VALIDATION-SCHEMAS
> > R-173-SEPARATE-CONSTRAINTS-FROM-VOCABULARIES-AND-ONTOLOGIES (R-140?)
> > R-201-SEPARATION-OF-CONSTRAINTS-AND-ONTOLOGY-SEMANTICS
> > R-34-AVAILABLE-CLASS-DEFINITION (OWL class expression for referenced types?)
> > R-154-HANDLE-CONSTRAINT-VIOLATIONS (??)
> > R-160-OPEN-SOURCE-CONSTRAINT-VALIDATION (??)
> > R-171-VALIDATION-OF-URIS-BY-DEREFERENCING (test 200?)
> > R-175-DISCOVER-CONSTRAINTS
> > R-177-DEFINE-SEMANTICS-FOR-CONSTRAINTS (definition in other languages, e.g. SPARQL)
> > R-187-DEFINE-SEMANTICS-OF-CONSTRAINTS-IN-TERMS-OF-SPARQL (specialization of R-177?)
> > R-183-CONSTRAINTS-ABOUT-CONSTRAINTS
> >
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
([log in to unmask])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
|