- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:12:49 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, 'Dean Allemang' <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, 'Holger Knublauch' <holger@topquadrant.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Yes, there would have to be some work done. However, there already is a semantics for SWRL in the W3C SWRL submission http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/ so I think that the bulk of the work is done for OWL+SWRL. peter On 11/25/2014 12:50 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > Yes, without a doubt - defining semantics will be a work item and a deliverable. > > What I meant by 'requiring work' (and I have used your words) is that before the semantics of constraints could be defined one would need to do some work on extending/enhancing/modifying (whatever is more precise) semantics of OWL or RDF. So, there would be two pieces of work. > > Please correct if I misunderstood you. > > Irene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:26 PM > To: Irene Polikoff; 'Dean Allemang'; 'Holger Knublauch' > Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Role of SPARQL > > I would say that each solution for defining semantics requires work, unless the solution is to use SPARQL itself as the complete solution. No proposal that I have seen is like this. > > peter > > > On 11/25/2014 11:27 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >> < Perhaps there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs >> to be fixed so a parallel solution has to be developed.> >> >> Peter, are you already aware of anything wrong with SPARQL algebra or >> is this a plan B in case it is discovered that there is something >> wrong with SPARQL algebra? >> >> So, the options for defining semantics of constraints so far are: >> >> 1.SPARQL >> >> 2.OWL+SWRL semantics - would require work on adding features of SWRL - >> either SWRL itself or expressions that use SWRL functions. And, I >> suppose, would require defining the new, closed word OWL semantics. >> >> 3.RDF semantics - would require work similar to the one above for >> using OWL semantics >> >> 4.Algebra on RDF graphs and datasets - an alternative to using SPARQL >> in case there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs to >> be fixed >> >> 5.Z semantics >> >> Does anyone have another option they are wanting to be considered? >> >> Irene >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:43 AM >> To: Irene Polikoff; 'Dean Allemang'; 'Holger Knublauch' >> Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Role of SPARQL >> >> One option for extending the constraint power of an OWL solution would >> be to add some features from SWRL. This could either be SWRL itself >> or expressions that use SWRL functions. >> >> I wasn't advocating the use of Z, just pointing out that it could be an option. >> >> Basing a solution on the RDF semantics would require work similar to a >> solution based on the OWL semantics. >> >> A solution using an algebra on RDF graphs and datasets might look very >> much like SPARQL. Perhaps there is something wrong with the SPARQL >> algebra that needs to be fixed so a parallel solution has to be developed. >> >> My email wasn't advocating any particular position, just pointing out >> that there are potential alternatives to SPARQL. >> >> peter >> >> On 11/24/2014 04:20 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >> >> > Dean, >> >> > >> >> > Your messages are indeed getting through. >> >> > >> >> > It seems to me that another issue with using OWL to do the kind of >> >> > definitions you are describing is that it can’t (to my knowledge) >> >> > cover a set a fairly common constraints such as start date must be >> >> > before the end date. I presuming here that this category of >> >> > constraints is accepted as a requirement. I believe Peter suggested >> >> > addressing this issue by using SWRL, so this option would be >> >> > OWL+SWRL. Is this correct? >> >> > >> >> > Peter identified a couple of other options: >> >> > >> >> > ·Z – I don’t think this is a viable idea as it introduces a new >> >> > language when there are already good options within the RDF stack >> >> > >> >> > ·RDF semantics – can this work? And how? >> >> > >> >> > ·Algebra on RDF graphs and datasets – can this work? And how? >> >> > >> >> > Irene >> >> > >> >
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 21:13:17 UTC