Thanks :-)
Am 22.07.2014 15:57, schrieb Bosch, Thomas:
>
> Hi Stefanie,
>
> please leave the check boxes ,Remember these settings' unchecked when
> you create new use cases.
>
> This is a known bug with a Drupal module.
>
> 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 <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 *Ruehle, Stefanie
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. Juli 2014 15:53
> *An:* [log in to unmask]
> *Betreff:* Re: Required/optional/repeatable vs. cardinality
> constraints Was: Re: AW: Database of Requirements on RDF Validation:
> http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
>
> Hi all,
>
> I tried to insert a use case but got an error when I tried to save it
>
> /PDOException/: SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1062
> Duplicate entry '4f94b75a61a7291da3b1718c9411199f-node-0' for key
> 'PRIMARY': INSERT INTO {cer_entity_settings} (pid, entity_type,
> entity_id, fiid, status) VALUES (:db_insert_placeholder_0,
> :db_insert_placeholder_1, :db_insert_placeholder_2,
> :db_insert_placeholder_3, :db_insert_placeholder_4); Array (
> [:db_insert_placeholder_0] => 4f94b75a61a7291da3b1718c9411199f
> [:db_insert_placeholder_1] => node [:db_insert_placeholder_2] => 0
> [:db_insert_placeholder_3] => 61 [:db_insert_placeholder_4] => 1 ) in
> /drupal_write_record()/ (line /7207/ of
> //data/rdf-validation/htdocs/includes/common.inc/).
>
> I have no problem to edit the DDB use case, so maybe I did something
> wrong. Hope you can help me:-(
>
> Stefanie
>
> Am 22.07.2014 12:23, schrieb Bosch, Thomas:
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
>
>
> On 21.07.2014 18:19, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
>
> Hi Evelyn, hi all,
>
>
>
> -Required Classes: so far, we do not have such a requirement
>
>
>
> -Non-repeatable Properties: so far, we do not have such a requirement
>
>
>
> Regarding required, optional, repeatable, non-repeatable properties:
>
> Doesn't it suffice if you have a way to express minimum, exact and
>
> maximum cardinality? IMO, if these cardinality requirements are
>
> fulfilled you can describe - amongst others - the
>
> required/optional/repeatable cases:
>
>
>
> - "required" is the same as minCardinality=1
>
> - "optional" is the same as minCardinality=0
>
> - "repeatable" can be expressed as a maxCardinality of >1 or not
>
> defining a maximum cardinality at all.
>
> - non-repeatable could be expressed with exactCardinality=1 or
>
> maxCardinality=1.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, these requirements are equivalent.
>
>
>
> But if we want to assign use cases directly to requirements we lost some information when we just point to e.g.
>
>
>
> R-76-MAXIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>
>
>
> We should definitely describe these equivalences.
>
>
>
> The other point is that it is for some people more understandable if they read the requirement 'required property' instead of 'Minimum Cardinality Restriction...'
>
>
>
> But of course I may be wrong...
>
>
>
>
>
> If I see this right, I guess it wouldn't make sense to adress
>
> cardinality and required/optional/repeatable properties seperately in an
>
> AP vocabulary. Thus, we might somehow structure these requirements in
>
> the database to make it easier to maintain an overview.
>
>
>
>
>
> So far, cardinality restrictions are found under this requirements class structure:
>
>
>
> Constraints Expressivity
>
> Class Expressions
>
> Cardinality Restrictions
>
>
>
> The required, optional, repeatable, non-repeatable properties can be found here:
>
>
>
> Constraints Expressivity
>
> Class Expressions
>
> Property Occurrences
>
>
>
> I'm open for restructuring.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> -Non-repeatable Classes: What does this mean? Are you on the instance
>
> level? I.e. that there can be only (at most) one instance of a specific
>
> class in an RDF graph?
>
>
>
> -Properties that are not part of the model: do you mean something like
>
> 'disallowed properties'? Properties that should not be allowed to be
>
> stated in an RDF graph?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> 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/> <http://www.gesis.org/>
>
>
>
> Website:http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> GitHub: _https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD_
>
>
>
> *Von:*DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:DC-
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>
> *Im Auftrag von *Evelyn Dröge
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. Juli 2014 16:03
>
> *An:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *Betreff:* Re: Database of Requirements on RDF Validation:
>
> http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas, hi all,
>
>
>
> thank you again, Thomas and Kai, for creating the database. I think this
>
> is a good help to structure and compare our use cases!
>
>
>
> I have some direct questions which I would like to discuss with you and
>
> others that work with the database.
>
>
>
> I could not find suitable requirements for the following cases:
>
>
>
> - Required Classes (similar to R-68 Required Properties; could be
>
> connected to the use case for non-repeatable classes)
>
>
>
> - Non-repeatable Properties (opposite of R-70 Repeatable Properties; or
>
> can this requirement used for both?)
>
>
>
> - Non-repeatable Classes
>
>
>
> - Properties that are not part of the model (and should not be ingested,
>
> see UC-15)
>
>
>
> Do you have (or has anyone else) an idea how this could be linked to
>
> exisiting requirements? Otherwise I would suggest to expand the
>
> requirements collection.
>
>
>
> Another question: I have a case where I find it hard to distinguish
>
> between requirements. This relates to UC-24 (Property value match; EDM)
>
> and UC-9 (Wrong Mime Types in DM2E). Should these use cases be
>
> connected
>
> with R-37 or with R-92 (or both)?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Evelyn
>
>
>
> Am 17.07.2014, 13:00 Uhr, schrieb Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I'm new to this mailing list and I would like to indoduce myself.
>
> My name is Thomas Bosch and I'm a PhD student in Computer Science in
>
> my fourth year now.
>
>
>
> I'm part of the editorial board of the DCMI RDF Application Profiles
>
> Task Group [1],
>
> whosepreliminary fields of work are (1) RDF Constraint Specification
>
> and Validation, (2) Definition of an RDF Application Profile, and
>
> (3) Request handling for RDF APs and data.
>
>
>
> Together with Kai Eckert (University of Mannheim), we created a
>
> database of requirements on RDF constraint formulation and
>
> validation, which is publicly accessable via
>
> http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
>
> and extensible by the community.
>
>
>
> During the last half year, we identified more than 180 requirements
>
> on RDF validation.
>
> Sources have been (1) the 2013 W3C RDF Validation Workshop, (2) your
>
> valuable mailing list discussions, (3) the 2013 Semantic Web in
>
> Libraries conference,
>
> (4) discussions in the RDF Application Profiles Task Group, and (5)
>
> diverse research papers.
>
>
>
> The idea of this extensible database is
>
> (1) to collect and describe case studies from experts (from theory
>
> and practice dealing with RDF validation problems) and the general
>
> public,
>
> (2) to extract common use cases from these case studies that
>
> illustrate particular problems,
>
> (3) to specify requirements to be fulfilled in order to adequately
>
> solve these problems and meet the use cases,
>
> (4) to investigate existing best-practices regarding these
>
> requirements, and
>
> (5) to evaluate existing approaches / tools to which extend specific
>
> requirements are fulfilled.
>
>
>
> Using this approach, we try to structure the requirements
>
> engineering process for RDF validation.
>
> I see that there is currently a lot of discussion about requirements
>
> on RDF validation on this maling list, which I tried to capture in
>
> the requirements DB as well.
>
>
>
> The contributors of the DCMI RDF Application Profiles Task Group are
>
> currently adding further case studies, use cases, requirements, and
>
> relationships between these entities to the database.
>
> This should be a work done for and from the community dealing with
>
> RDF validation issues.
>
>
>
> The full source code of the system and the database with the current
>
> state of all requirements is also available:
>
> https://github.com/kaiec/reqbase
>
> You can easily set up a local version for own developments.
>
>
>
> Do you think this is the right way to go?
>
> Do you have further ideas?
>
>
>
> We hope this kind of contribution could be helpful for the community.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much and I really enjoy the valuable discussions on
>
> the mailing list
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> [1]http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF-Application-Profiles
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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_
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Evelyn Dröge
>
>
>
> Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
>
> Berlin School of Library and Information Science
>
> - Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana (DM2E) -
>
> Sitz: Dorotheenstraße 26, D-10117 Berlin
>
> Post: Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin
>
> Tel.: +49 30 2093-4265
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> www.ibi.hu-berlin.de <http://www.ibi.hu-berlin.de> <http://www.ibi.hu-berlin.de> <http://www.ibi.hu-berlin.de> | dm2e.eu
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adrian Pohl
>
> hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes NRW
>
> Tel: (+49)(0)221 - 400 75 235
>
> http://www.hbz-nrw.de
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stefanie Rühle
> Metadata and Data Conversion
>
> Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
> Göttingen State and University Library
> D-37070 Göttingen
>
> Papendiek 14 (Historical Building, room 1.603)
> +49 551 39-10905 (Tel.)
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--
Stefanie Rühle
Metadata and Data Conversion
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Göttingen State and University Library
D-37070 Göttingen
Papendiek 14 (Historical Building, room 1.603)
+49 551 39-10905 (Tel.)
[log in to unmask]
