Hi Antoine
---
---Hi Thomas,
---
---That sounds good enough for now. The process of assigning manually the
---requirements category ‘Dublin Core requirements’ to the requirements seems
---error-prone, compared to a dynamic view which would have extracted the
---good requirements from the path between requirements and (DC) case
---studies via use cases. But I believe it will be alright.
That would be the best solution.
Currently, there is no way to say that a case study is a DC case study...
---
---Also, I think I would like to have the other categories on the left customizable
---so that they would show only DC requirements too. Perhaps by sending Drupla
---two query parameters instead of one (e.g. ?q=taxonomy/term/5 and
---?q=requirements/dc-requirements).
Good idea --> https://github.com/kaiec/reqbase/issues/17
---
---But I guess all this is probably a sign that I should ask an RDF dump and
---playwith a SPARQL query engine for myself ;-)
---Let's focus first on extracting these requirements, from our cases.
Feel free to play with the RDF Drupal module.
---
---Thanks a lot!
---
---Antoine
---
---On 7/28/14 8:54 PM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
---> Or just click on the left sidebar on the corresponding requirements class
---'Dublin Core Requirements'...
--->
---> --
---> 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
--->
--->
---> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
---> Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:DC-
[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Bosch, Thomas
---> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Juli 2014 20:53
---> An: [log in to unmask]
---> Betreff: AW: Dublin Core requirements
--->
---> Hi Karen,
--->
---> I browsed the current DC use cases and assigned all associated requirements
---to the class of requirements 'Dublin Core Requirements'.
--->
---> If you click on this view http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-
---validation/?q=requirements/dc-requirements
---> you will see all the requirements which are relevant for this community.
--->
---> DC requirements have to be assigned to the requirements class 'Dublin Core
---Requirements' in order to be showed in this view.
--->
--->
---> 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
---> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
---> GitHub: https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD
--->
--->
---> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
---> Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:DC-
[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Karen Coyle
---> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Juli 2014 19:43
---> An: [log in to unmask]
---> Betreff: Re: Dublin Core requirements
--->
---> Thomas, it probably is helpful, but it will be clearer when it's with
---> real data, not just "test-1". ;-) Does this mean, though, that the
---> current requirements need to be re-coded for this data?
--->
---> kc
--->
---> On 7/28/14, 9:15 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
--->> Hi,
--->>
--->> I added another view on requirements:
--->>
--->> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-
---validation/?q=requirements/dc-requirements
--->>
--->> On this site, all requirements are listed which are assigned to the
--->> requirements category ‘Dublin Core requirements’.
--->>
--->> (So far, only test requirements are assigned…)
--->>
--->> Is this view helpful?
--->>
--->> Thanks,
--->>
--->> 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:DC-
[log in to unmask]]
--->> *Im Auftrag von *Eric Prud'hommeaux
--->> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014 14:04
--->> *An:* [log in to unmask]
--->> *Betreff:* Re: AW: AW: OWL is hard?
--->>
--->>
--->> On Jul 27, 2014 12:31 PM, "Antoine Isaac" <[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
--->> >
--->> > Hi Thomas,
--->> >
--->> >
--->> >
--->> >> One possibility would be to have an additional category in the left
--->> sidebar 'Dublin Core Requirements' (I added it already, but can delete
--->> it if not wished).
--->> >> That would be the fastest and easiest solution.
--->> >
--->> >
--->> >
--->> > Yes.
--->>
--->> This is good for several reasons:
--->>
--->> You can track evolving ideas on the Shapes list.
--->>
--->> The W3C process can leverage your diligence.
--->>
--->> You can exercise your editorial power to provide humorous labels for
--->> the foreign input.
--->>
--->> It's a win all around (except that you end up doing a lot of work). Many
--->> thanks.
--->>
--->> >> I can also add an additional view on requirements which are only
--->> associated with the requirements class 'Dublin Core Requirements'.
--->> >> This view could be accessed with an additional sub-menu entry
--->> 'Dublin Core Requirements' (or something similar) under the requirements
--->> main menu entry.
--->> >>
--->> >
--->> >
--->> > It sounds good, but inf act I'm not sure I can see what the end
--->> result (UI) would be!
--->> >
--->> > Cheers,
--->> >
--->> > Antoine
--->> >
--->> >
--->> > On 7/27/14 12:10 PM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
--->> >
--->> >>
--->> >> --
--->> >> 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: Bosch, Thomas
--->> >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Juli 2014 12:04
--->> >> An: DCMI Architecture Forum
--->> >> Betreff: AW: AW: OWL is hard?
--->> >>
--->> >> Hi Antoine,
--->> >>
--->> >> I see your point.
--->> >>
--->> >> One possibility would be to have an additional category in the left
--->> sidebar 'Dublin Core Requirements' (I added it already, but can delete
--->> it if not wished).
--->> >> That would be the fastest and easiest solution.
--->> >>
--->> >> Is this solution what you expected?
--->> >> Dies this fit your requirement?
--->> >>
--->> >>
--->> >> Best regards,
--->> >> Thomas
--->> >>
--->> >>
--->> >> Hi Thomas,
--->> >>
--->> >> This makes me think about a potential feature to consider for the
--->> database. Can we had something to distinguish between the requirements
--->> that are originated from the DC task group work from the ones discussed
--->> on the W3C list?
--->> >>
--->> >> I know that the link between cases and requirements allow us to find
--->> the list of "Dublin Core" requirements. But there is no shortcut to get
--->> requirements that are connected to all DC cases, in one go. [1]
--->> >>
--->> >> Why am I asking this? Honestly, I find that what is happening on the
--->> W3C list is really good to stimulate people around the creation of the
--->> work. But from a design process perspective, it's a real nightmare. All
--->> these emails are fired with no grounding on real cases (I'm not saying
--->> they're not legit, just that there is no explicit relation with real cases).
--->> >>
--->> >> I'd like our work in the task group not to be polluted by this. If
--->> you can entertain the noise, that's great. But I don't have the time,
--->> and I suppose many people on the DC task group won't have either.
--->> >>
--->> >> Besides, if the W3C group starts, the requirements will probably be
--->> tracked through a W3C issue system. And those issues will probably be
--->> quite strictly controlled, i.e. only approved requirements connected to
--->> use cases will be kept there. I would regard this as a good practice for
--->> us too.
--->> >>
--->> >> Again, I'm not requesting that you wouldn't introduce the W3C list
--->> requirements in your DB. You created it, it would be unfair for us to
--->> dictate its use. What I'd like is that at any moment we can say 'ok,
--->> this is our curated data, and this is the explorative stuff from
--->> others'. If we can't do it, I'm afraid the DB won't be usable by the group.
--->> >>
--->> >> Cheers,
--->> >>
--->> >> Antoine
--->> >>
--->> >> [1] I believe there must be a way to get a requirement listing it
--->> quite easily.
--->> >> What I'm wondering is whether this can be applied to the facets on
--->> the left menu. I believe these need to work on the entire requirement
--->> database.
--->> >>
--->> >> On 7/27/14 10:31 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Hi Simon,
--->> >>>
--->> >>> I added this requirement to the RDF validation requirements db:
--->> >>>
--->> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=R-190-
---SPECIFY-EXPECTED-BEHAVIOR-UNDER-ALL-POSSIBLE-ENTAILMENT-REGIMES
--->> >>>
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Kind regards,
--->> >>> 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:* Simon Spero [[log in to unmask]
---<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
--->> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. Juli 2014 22:43
--->> >>> *An:* Kendall Clark
--->> >>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--->> >>> *Betreff:* Re: OWL is hard?
--->> >>>
--->> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Kendall Clark
--->> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
---wrote:
--->> >>>
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foaf:Person class,
--->> >>> foaf:name 1 1,
--->> >>> foo:email 1 1,
--->> >>> foo:phone 0 * .
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Some Manchester syntax (again corrections welcome)
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Class: foaf:[P]erson
--->> >>> foaf:name exactly 1
--->> >>> foo:email exactly 1
--->> >>> foo:phone min 0
--->> >>>
--->> >>>
--->> >>> I'm not sure exactly what constraint is being specified on on
--->> foo:phone in the original example.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> The informal description is about a web service which requires
--->> that "all resources submitted to it must be of type foaf:Person, must
--->> have a foaf:name and a foo:email, and possibly one or more foo:phone".
--->> >>>
--->> >>> a) If the intended meaning of the final clause is that the
--->> cardinality of foo:phone is between 0 and infinity, then it is trivial.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> b) If the intended meaning of the final clause is to serve purely
--->> as documentation then it is not really a constraint.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> c) If the intended meaning of the entire phrase is that it is to be
--->> construed using /expressio unius
--->> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual>/, then
--->> the final clause /is/ necessary, because any predicates not explicitly
--->> mentioned are forbidden. Under this interpretation,
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Example 1 is valid:
--->> >>> 1)
--->> >>>
--->> >>> [ a foaf:Person ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foo:email
--->> "[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
--->> >>> ].
--->> >>>
--->> >>> But:
--->> >>>
--->> >>> *2)
--->> >>>
--->> >>> [ a foaf:Person,foaf:Agent ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foo:email
--->> "mailto:[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
--->> >>> ].
--->> >>>
--->> >>> ... is invalid, because it includes a value for rdf:type even
--->> though that value is entailed by the foaf Ontology.
--->> >>> A similar problem could occur if there were sub or
--->> super-properties of foo:email - e.g. if there were sub properties for
--->> officialEmail and personalEmail, or if there were a super property
--->> contactURL.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Also:
--->> >>> *3)
--->> >>>
--->> >>> [ a foaf:Person ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foaf:name "John F. Manning" ;
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foo:email
--->> "[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
--->> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>";
--->> >>>
--->> >>> foaf:gender "male";
--->> >>>
--->> >>> ].
--->> >>>
--->> >>> ... is invalid, because foaf:gender is not explicitly mentioned.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Any specification that implements this approach must specify
--->> expected behavior under all possible entailment regimes.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> I am not sure if it is possible to specify in OWL the constraint
--->> that the maximum cardinality for all properties apart from a
--->> specifically mentioned set is 0 (it is probably doable in SPARQL as
--->> long as entailment regimes are handled carefully).
--->> >>>
--->> >>> It would not be too hard to define OWL constructs that could serve
--->> this purpose if the CWA is in effect- e.g. pseudo-properties like
--->> 'otherObjectProperties' and 'otherDataProperties', or even
--->> 'otherProperties'. This kind of pseudo-property would probably not be
--->> suitable for use in inferencing.
--->> >>>
--->> >>> Simon
--->>
--->
|