 |
 |
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. 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. 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/> > > Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/ > > GitHub: _https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD_ > > *Von:*DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Im Auftrag von *Evelyn Dröge > *Gesendet:* Montag, 21. Juli 2014 16:03 > *An:* [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]>>: > > 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]> > 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