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:[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
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet