Hi all,
I conducted an evaluation to what extent the constraint languages SHACL, ShEx, ReSh, OWL 2, DSP, and SPIN cover RDF validation requirements.
Attached you find the evaluation results.
Many / Most of the DC requirements are included in this evaluation (although the wording may be different in some cases, since our database is continuously updated),
but not all - i.a., the ones not approved by the W3C working group.
I could walk through our DC requirements and continue this evaluation for the remaining DC requirements, if people think this is useful.
Cheers,
Thomas
--
Thomas Hartmann (formerly Bosch)
M.Sc. in Information Systems, Ph.D. Student in Computer Science
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Social Science Metadata Standards
Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
Web: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015 17:32
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [RDF AP] Post SWIB meeting, Thursday, Dec. 3
Webex link:
https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M6Z5D9V6V6WIXOLFOKBAUSDVYV-JV0D&rnd=327025.71398
The notes from our gathering at SWIB2015 are now on the wiki.[1] We
concluded there with a list of potential activities for this group:
- 1. take DC requirements and see if languages from W3C group (SHACL and
maybe also ShEx) can cover them
- 2. start working on dcmi/dsp to shacl implementation
-- for DC and other community, SHACL can be a black box, we don’t intend
to interact directly with its internals
-- There is SHACL validation, we want to be able to send profiles
against it and receive results
-- If the point of the SHACL initiative is being driven by ‘hard core
SPARQL types’, we can translate everything into SPARQL.
- 3. at same time, extend dsp as/if needed
We need to discuss these ideas further and turn them into tasks. Note
that we already did a comparison of DC requirements and SHACL
requirements [2] although this may need to be reviewed. Also, there is a
document that compares the SHACL requirements with SHACL functions [3]
that might help us.
We realize that this is last-minute, but do try to be on the call. We
will try to resume regular meetings around these tasks.
Karen and Antoine
[1]http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/SWIB2015_breakout
[2]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bCpQVyxI-N2Ca83umvQD8OKTdsDyG6Sz-E8Qo3v8ynM/edit#gid=1060352541&vpid=A1
[3]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1whx2DeJtng-WZXo2DAHc_GZL7ElXNS_B8fBxarGA-0o/edit
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|