Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type?

[Nick Crossley <ncrossley@us.ibm.com>]

Ian,

I would have thought that my language "A resource type URI. An Activity MUST have a resource type of <code>oslc_config:Activity</code>,  and MAY have other types" does not really need any special interpretation - it seems very explicit to me. My text replaced the phrase used in several other OSLC 3 draft specs, including change management, which says "The resource type URIs. One of at least has the value of <code>http://open-services.net/ns/cm#ChangeRequest</code>." The latter is of course not grammatically correct.

The W3C LDP spec uses this explanation: "The representation of a LDPC MAY have an rdf:type of ldp:Container for Linked Data Platform Container. Non-normative note: LDPCs might have additional types, like any LDP-RS." Would you prefer the OSLC shapes used this phrase (with MUST rather than MAY where appropriate)?

Or is your question more fundamental - do you think that the OSLC Shape, using oslc:Property resources, should not include any mention of rdf:type? If so, given that our specs now generate the resource description tables from shapes, where would we put descriptions of the requirements on rdf:type? Why would type be treated differently from any other property that might have similar semantics - one value defined by the standard, others possible for provider-specific extensions?

Nick.

Ian Green1 ---08/04/2015 08:04:41 AM---I should have put my question differently.  Where is it defined that  Nick's interpretation/usage of

From: Ian Green1 <ian.green@uk.ibm.com>
To: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS, OASIS (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org) <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 08/04/2015 08:04 AM
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type?

---

I should have put my question differently.  Where is it defined that Nick's interpretation/usage of oslc:Property is the one he intends? 


best wishes,
   -ian

ian.green@uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB)
IBM 

<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 04/08/2015 13:08:55:

> From: Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
> To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
> Cc: Nick Crossley <ncrossley@us.ibm.com>, OASIS (oslc-
> core@lists.oasis-open.org) <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> Date: 04/08/2015 13:09 
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? 
> Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> 
> If it's zero-or-many or one-or-many how often would you need to 
> constrain all values? 
> the *-or-many occurs values are the main point of extensibility - if
> the client doesn't understand all values (because others are 
> extensions), it can doits best with the ones that it does understand. 
> I expect there are times when you would need to - for example a 
> server advertising its own resource shapes that can't handle 
> unrecognised values (i.e. doesn't store everything it receives in a 
> triple store), but for use in the specs I expect leaving it open 
> would be the default. 
> 
> Just my thoughts...
> 

> 
> 
> 
> Martin Pain
> Software Developer - Green Hat
> Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel 
> 
> Phone: +44 (0)1962 815317 | Tie-Line: 37245317
> E-mail: martinpain@uk.ibm.com
> Find me on: [image removed]  and within IBM on: [image removed]   
> 
> [image removed] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, 
> Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
> To:        Nick Crossley <ncrossley@us.ibm.com> 
> Cc:        OASIS (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org) <oslc-
> core@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> Date:        04/08/2015 13:04 
> Subject:        Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage
> of rdf:type? 
> Sent by:        <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not noticed it being used with this interpretation.  So how 
> would one define a Property which covered all occurrences of a 
> multi-valued property? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best wishes,
>   -ian
> 
> ian.green@uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB)
> IBM 
> 
> <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 30/07/2015 14:43:06:
> 
> > From: Nick Crossley <ncrossley@us.ibm.com> 
> > To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
> > Cc: OASIS (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org) <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 30/07/2015 14:43 
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Use of oslc:Property to define usage of rdf:type? 
> > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> > 
> > Ian wrote: 
> > 
> > In https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-
> > ccm/trunk/specs/config-mgt/activity-shapes.ttl the rdf:type of and 
> > oslc:Activity is described: 
> > 
> > <#acttype> 
> >    a                        oslc:Property ; 
> >    oslc:name                "type" ; 
> >    oslc:propertyDefinition  rdf:type ; 
> >    oslc:occurs              oslc:One-or-many ; 
> >    oslc:readOnly            true ; 
> >    oslc:representation      oslc:Reference ; 
> >    oslc:valueType           oslc:Resource ; 
> >    dcterms:description      """A resource type URI. An Activity MUST
> > have a resource type of <code>oslc_config:Activity</code>, 
> > and MAY have other types."""^^rdf:XMLLiteral . 
> > 
> > rdf:type is multi-valued but the description made by <#actype> is 
> > particular to exactly one of those values, not all of them (I assume
> > that is the intention). 
> > Yes, that is the intention. It is common for OSLC shapes to define 
> > one or more of the required rdf:type values but leave it open for 
> > others to be applied.
> > 
> > Nick. 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 
> 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU