W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > October 2010


From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:32:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC93526.9070104@cs.vu.nl>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
CC: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
I really agree with this.

If we need a language to express APs in, why not use OWL and then use 
whatever technology necessary to actually validate the data. Be it 
Pellet's SPARQL route or an XSD route.

OWL purists won't like it, but as discussed at the F2F you can sell it 
like this: they just happen to have the same syntax but different 
semantics. Any other syntax you invent to express these constraints will 
look very similar anyway.


On 26/10/2010 11:32, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Jodi,
> The point on UML is a bit of a tangent: IMO, UML domain models are a
> variant of OWL (80-20 rule). If seeing UML class diagrams help people
> visualize an ontology, great. If not, ignore it.
> In general, though, I think that Michael Panzer and I hope to encourage
> the use of OWL as the preferred abstract model. Even though OWL
> semantics specify an open-world assumption, this only becomes relevant
> at the point where reasoning is applied. Until then, the application
> model is the same regardless. Michael’s brief demo of the Pellet
> Integrity Constraint Validator (ICV) at the Joint Meeting seems to show
> promise as a bridge between OWL and closed-world views.
> http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/
> Another way to impose a closed-world view on OWL is to translate it
> (i.e. the application model expressed in OWL) into XSD, which is the
> route I took. I would argue that the OWL and XSD (and UML class diagram
> for that matter) are just variant Web document representations of the
> exact same application model. In other words, any one of these three
> could serve as the datum from which the others could be generated at
> runtime (80-20 rule).
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/UML.png
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/model.owl
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/model.xsd
> So in effect, this route could be viewed as an XSD “Integrity Constraint
> Validator” that is analogous to what Pellet ICV is doing.
> Jeff
> *From:*Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:40 AM
> *To:* Young,Jeff (OR)
> *Cc:* public-lld
> *Subject:* Re: DCAP in UML/OWL/XSD
> Thanks for sharing this, Jeff. Is the point just to show the translation
> itself, or are there key facts that you're pointing out about what's
> lost/changed in translation? (Just trying to make sure I'm not missing
> something.)
> -Jodi
> On 25 Oct 2010, at 21:42, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> A zip file is attached with an example translation of an OWL ontology
> into XSD to check closed-world assumptions. This was the essence of what
> I talked about at the Joint Meeting:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JointMeeting2010#Part_1_.2814:00-15:30.29:_Review_of_DCMI_Abstract_Model.2C_brainstorming_on_requirements
> The key documents are also browsable on the Web:
> http://alcme.oclc.org/dcap/
> I kept the XSD focused on a single individual of type Work, but in
> principle XSDs could be built that systematically bundled more of the
> surrounding individuals.
> I think that Michael’s demonstration of Pellet using SPARQL queries to
> do validation is more interesting because it can be applied beyond RDF
> document ingest.
> Comments, questions and discussion are welcome.
> Jeff
> ---
> Jeffrey A. Young
> Software Architect
> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
> 6565 Kilgour Place
> Dublin, OH 43017-3395
> www.oclc.org <http://www.oclc.org>
> Voice: 614-764-4342
> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
> Fax: 614-718-7477
> Email:jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
> <dcap.zip>
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 08:33:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:39 UTC