ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
Number/namecommentsDSP?EP categoryEP comments
2
R-1-UNIQUENESS-OF-URISout of scope?DC
3
R-10-DISJOINT-DATA-PROPERTIESneed to add disjoint generally to DSPnoDC
4
R-117-CONTEXT-SENSITIVE-CONSTRAINTSHL [[ <Issue> { ex:reportedBy @<UserShape>, ex:reproducedBy @<EmployeeShape> } ]]DC
5
R-118-NAMESPACE-SENSITIVE-CONSTRAINTSHLDC
6
R-100-SUBSUMPTIONRIDC
7
R-26-DATA-PROPERTY-DOMAINneeds "disjoint" capability; see UC11noRIDC
8
R-35-DATA-PROPERTY-RANGEneeds "disjoint" capability; see UC11noRIDC
9
R-25-OBJECT-PROPERTY-DOMAINneeds "disjoint" capability; see UC11noRIDC
10
R-28-OBJECT-PROPERTY-RANGEneeds "disjoint" capability; see UC11noRIDC
11
R-31-DEFAULT-VALUES-OF-RDF-OBJECTSRIDC
12
R-50-WHITESPACE-HANDLING-OF-RDF-LITERALSout of scope?
13
R-64-SUB-DATA-PROPERTIES (SubDataPropertyOf)RIDC
14
R-46-CONSTRAINING-FACETS (literal constraints by XML Schema facets)same as R30? Would be a dsp literal listEXLEXDC
15
R-45-RANGES-OF-RDF-LITERAL-VALUESadd to DSP literal valuenoEXLEX [[ med:systolic ucum:mmHg ]]DC
16
R-98-CHECK-VALIDITY-OF-URIS (http:///example.com/)out of scope?EXLEXDC
17
R-37-ALLOWED-VALUES-FOR-RDF-LITERALSyesEXVAL[[ ex:status ("assigned" "unassigned") ]]DC
18
R-76-MAXIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIESEXCARDDC
19
R-78-MINIMUM-QUALIFIED-CARDINALITY-RESTRICTIONS-ON-DATA-PROPERTIESEXCARDDC
20
R-49-RDF-LITERALS-HAVING-AT-MOST-ONE-LANGUAGE-TAGas defined in RDF? out of scope??EXCARDDC
21
R-71-CONDITIONAL-PROPERTIES (superset of R-66?)EXCARDDC
22
R-68-REQUIRED-PROPERTIESEXCARD[[ ex:status . ]] [[ ex:status .{1} ]]DC
23
R-141-NEGATIVE-PATTERN-MATCHING-ON-RDF-LITERALSEXNEGDC
24
R-43-COMPARISONS-BASED-ON-DATATYPEEXODC
25
R-171-VALIDATION-OF-URIS-BY-DEREFERENCING (test 200?)DC
26
27
UC-1-VALIDATION-FOLLOWING-DPLA-ENRICHMENTis this more than multiple APs?
28
UC-10-WRONG-DATATYPESin dsp as SES; may just be a wording change?
29
UC-11-WRONG-PROPERTY-DOMAINSI think this one can be solved with the ability to have disjoint classes. Properties are ALWAYS in the right domain :-). What I think this means is that you want to limit a resource/subject to a single domain, which is done with disjointness.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100