I always considered SHACL on the same level as DSP, i.e., constraints
formulated using either of it are PART OF an AP, not the AP itself. Or
is this yes another interpretation of AP? :-)
BTW, Thomas has provided the long-missed implementation of DSP, so the
point of your interviewees is not valid anymore, at least for RDF data.
Cheers,
Kai
Am 23.07.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Mariana Curado Malta:
> I do agree with Valentine regarding the terminology problem.
>
> I think it is a metadata community (as a whole) problem. Many times
> we give different names to the same things or slightly the same
> things.
>
> This does not help implementors.
>
> The metadata community (as a whole) should make an effort in order
> to unity/standardize names.
>
> Still on Karen's email. I think we really need a way to express an
> Application Profille using RDF. That was one of the issues/complains
> of the developers I have interviewed during my PhD work, DSP was not
> interesting since in the end there was no use for it (more than the
> description), no way to automatically validate data modeled with
> that AP.
>
> regards, Mariana
>
> ----------------------------------- Mariana Curado Malta | maltas.org
> [log in to unmask] PhD, Associate Professor |
> http://www.iscap.ipp.pt
> http://algoritmi.uminho.pt/research-teams/semag/
>
> Trade Union delegate | snesup.pt
>
> ________________________________________ De: DCMI Architecture Forum
> <[log in to unmask]> em nome de Valentine Charles
> <[log in to unmask]> Enviado: 23 de julho de 2015 08:14
> Para: [log in to unmask] Assunto: Re: [RDF AP] Darwin
> Core, SHACL, and APs
>
> Hello Karen,
>
> I have looked at the Darwin Core documentation which is indeed very
> good and I looked at the SHACL document which I have to admit had
> lot of trouble to understand. My problem is that when I looked at the
> XML or RDF version of the Darwin Core I do understand the
> application profile and what I have to do. I think it is mostly due
> to the fact that it refers to a framework we are familiar with (such
> as DCAM). I was completely lost when I looked at SHACL. My feeling is
> that if a DC application profile is a particular implementation of
> SHACL it should provide the framework we are familiar with on top of
> SHACL. The framework might not be DCAM but I think it will be
> important to re-use some of the terminology. I think my main problem
> with SHACL is that I didn't understand the terminology and had
> therefore trouble to associate it with my EDM use case.
>
> My confusion might come the fact that I'm not so familiar with
> languages like SHACL but I thought I would share my thoughts with
> you.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Valentine
>
> ________________________________________ From: DCMI Architecture
> Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Karen Coyle
> [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 22 July 2015 20:24 To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: [RDF AP] Darwin Core, SHACL,
> and APs
>
> I recently discovered Darwin Core[1], a sort of an extension of
> Dublin Core for biological data. It is well-documented, and has both
> RDF and XML versions. What struck me is that the XML version is
> based on DCAM and is essentially an application profile.
>
> We still have the question before us of whether we can create an AP
> in RDF. The issue (and it is one that is tormenting the W3C SHACL
> group as well) is how to define a bounded data set (aka: a record)
> using RDF. Assuming that the W3C group will resolve that, it may
> mean that we can use SHACL as the implementation language for an
> application profile, and that a DC application profile could be a
> particular implemention of SHACL.
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
>
> kc [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm -- Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype:
> kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
--
Prof. Dr. Kai Eckert, Stuttgart Media University
http://www.kaiec.org/
PGP Public Key: http://www.kaiec.org/2012/pgp/pubkey.asc
A987 3760 12A6 35A4 E6D2 577E 513A 6B84 C755 5A67
|