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


PS:  Why two introductions?  As with many companies, Nuance uses Exchange as 
its mail server and sets up Exchange to mangle outgoing email.  The mangled 
information is then used to identify my emails in W3C mailing lists.  I'll try 
to stick to using an email setup that is not subject to this mangling.

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 23:13:52 UTC