On 4 May 2015 at 20:50, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > The term must be used exactly in the same way it is defined by the >> > namespace/vocabulary/ontology, otherwise won't be processed as expected. >> >> Theoretically, but not in this case. >> >> The processing is defined by XSL files that were manually created. >> So whatever the files are coded to expect is what will work. >> This may or may not be the same as the definition. >> >> In fact at present the XSL files have been coded to accept both >> asfext:PMC and asfext:pmc. >> Only one of these can be correct in terms of the formal definition. > > > OK, but that's because whoever code the XSLT decided to be defensive to such > interpretation.
If you read back in this thread you will see that I did this in order to support both asfext:PMC and asfext:pmc. > But that does not mean is right. The code is right in the sense that it works with the input files that are provided. My point was that the formal definition does not affect how the XSL files work. All that matters is that the XSL file agrees with what is in the input files. They could use asfext:XyZ provided that the XSL files were coded to expect that. Nor does the formal definition affect validation of the input RDF files otherwise there would not be conflicting references in the RDF files, and we would not be having this discussion. >> >> The problem is that it is not clear what the formal definition is. > > No, the formal definition is clear at the ns file: > http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#pmc >> >> >> It would help to know what the formal definition of the asfext >> namespace actually means. > > > Ok, let's try to put it eas. This is the definition from the namespace (rdf > vocabulary): > > <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#pmc";> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#"; /> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PMC</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">ASF Project Management > Committee</rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"; /> > <rdfs:subPropertyOf > rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"; /> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#"; /> > </rdf:Property> > > That means: > > * the exactURI <http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext#pmc> (or abbreviated as > asfext:pmc if the prefix declaration is available) defines the property > name, exactly "pmc", other syntactic version would not match the formal > definition. > * the label is just the human-readable label of the property, can't be use > as property > * comment is the same, just a comment to be read > * subproperty means that the value of the property has a specialized meaning > over the general purpose label > * domain is the type of objects that can use that property, in this case > doap:Project instances > * range defines the values in ca take, int his case a literal, a basic > type, such as string or int > > And that's more of less the semantics behind such definition of the > property. Hope it helps to understand. Yes, that is useful. >> >> Also if it is possible to validate that the various RDF files are >> correct according to the formal definitions. >> PMCs could then submit their files for checking. > > > I think we can discuss that infrastructure for the new site. I'm happy to > help. Python provides the required libraries. I'll open a thread, probably > tomorrow. I think there needs to be a way for PMCs to check their RDF files against the formal definitions. For example, a CGI script that accepts the URL of a file. > Cheers, > > -- > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co > w: http://redlink.co
