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
|