Introduction

Hi:

Hmm.  What do say here?  Well, I've worked on OWL and RDF, and then OWL again, and then RDF again.  Hopefully I haven't made too much of a mess of them.

Nuance is joining the working group because it feels that it will be consuming information published in RDF, and feels that there should be ways of either describing or constraining the information contained in sets of RDF documents.

I'm interested in constraints on information in RDF documents, particularly so that data in these documents can be reliably consumed, so I'm joining the working group.  During the discussion of the working group charter I sent in a description of how previous academic work on description logic constraints can be cut down to provide a foundation for RDF constraints.   It turns out that this cut down version is what appears to be implemented in Stardog, and can also provide a foundation for RDF constraint systems that translate into SPARQL queries.

I will be very disappointed if all the working group can do is to develop a vocabulary that defines constraints against RDF graphs via a complex mapping to SPARQL queries.  I will also be disappointed if all the working group can do is to produce a specification for RDF constraints that is based on something completely different from the bases for RDF and OWL.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 22:50:18 UTC