- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:14:05 +1000
- To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53D82ABD.5080006@topquadrant.com>
I don't really want to do the work of the requirements task force here and now. But in general, I think we all understand that OWL cannot represent all possible use cases, especially those that require "variables" that refer to the same entity in multiple places. Holger On 7/30/14, 8:53 AM, Kendall Clark wrote: > Can you give some examples of these "more complicated constraints" > that OWL cannot represent? > > On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com > <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote: > > Let's wait and see what requirements this WG comes up with. Of > course there is a large overlap between the various Shapes > proposals and OWL in that they all support cardinality and range > restrictions. If it was just about those types then yes reusing > the terms (or local names) from OWL can work. However, as soon as > you add a few things that OWL cannot syntactically represent, then > you could just as well start from scratch and define a converter > script (or on-the-fly-conversion). It will likely be cleaner and > more honest to avoid confusion and have less ballast. And > independent of a high-level vocabulary for end users, there is > still a need to express more complicated constraints, and SPARQL > is the best available language to represent those. All we need to > agree on is a way to link SPARQL with RDF data models and SPIN is > one proposal to do that. > > And yes, TopBraid also used OWL with closed-world interpretation > from day one, and it includes a SPIN library to interpret the OWL > vocabulary for constraint checking - at least for the restriction > subset of OWL and domains and ranges. > > Holger > > > On 7/30/14, 4:00 AM, Kendall Clark wrote: >> Yes, it might (assuming you were addressing me) although it may >> be too late now. We re-used the OWL namespace mostly out of >> habit, not from some particular goal or aim (well, to not break >> existing tools like Protege which knew how to manipulate that >> *syntax* -- that was the main goal)... But at this point I'm not >> sure a different namespace is going to change anyone's mind. :> >> >> Cheers, >> Kendall >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Paul <paul@proxml.be >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@proxml.be');>> wrote: >> >> Would using different namespaces help in acceptance? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> On 29-jul.-2014, at 19:46, Kendall Clark >> <kendall@clarkparsia.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kendall@clarkparsia.com');>> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I appreciate that concern. Everyone keeps telling me >>> that this seems like a problem in principle; apparently >>> we're the only ones who built it *as a real thing* and *in >>> practice* it's not a problem at all. Our customers don't >>> find it in the least bit confusing. In fact, as we >>> originally said, most people who wanted OWL always wanted >>> closed world semantics anyway, so giving it to them is a big >>> win. >>> >>> Oh well. :> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kendall >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bernard Vatant >>> <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bernard.vatant@mondeca.com');>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kendall >>> >>> I did not want to point at any specific syntax, but >>> since you mention it ... >>> Reusing OWL syntax with a closed world interpretation is >>> of course a seductive path (which I've been following >>> myself, as said before) but I've always been a bit >>> uneasy about it. OWA is built in the OWL Recommendation. >>> I would rather have a neutral language, with >>> non-ambiguous open world interpretation in OWL, and >>> another one in any closed-world language (SPIN, SPARQL, >>> you name it). >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-29 18:07 GMT+02:00 Kendall Clark >>> <kendall@clarkparsia.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kendall@clarkparsia.com');>>: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bernard Vatant >>> <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bernard.vatant@mondeca.com');>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Does that mean that we are looking for >>> something (language, format, whatever) that >>> could be interpreted either with the open world >>> assumption to support open world reasoning, and >>> (exactly the same piece) interpreted in closed >>> world applications as a constraint for >>> interfaces or a validation rule? >>> >>> >>> I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but this >>> is precisely what Stardog ICV does using OWL syntax >>> and is (to my knowledge) the only such system that >>> does. But, alas, it does not appear that there is >>> consensus in the likely Validation WG to put that on >>> the recommendation track. A mistake, in my view, but >>> there you go. :> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kendall >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Bernard Vatant >>> * >>> Vocabularies & Data Engineering >>> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 >>> Skype : bernard.vatant >>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> *Mondeca***** >>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris* >>> * >>> www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com/> >>> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews >>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 23:14:39 UTC