W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Using sparql for 'validation'

From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:34:48 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20051212171938.02cce2b0@pop.snet.net>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

Hi Alastair --

You may like to consider running an English-ized version of you validation 
rules in the Internet Business Logic system.  The system is online at the 
site below.

The likely advantages are:

   *  automatic control of those pesky recursive loops

   *  self-documenting rules

   *  rules can easily be composed into a "check everything" rule

   *  English explanations of results found (and "why nots" for results not 
found), at the end user level.

   *  publication of the executable, readable rulesets on the web, where 
others can easily view, run and change them -- wiki style.

   *  cost = $ 0.  Shared use of the system is free.

   *  automatic generation and execution of SQL that would be too complex 
to write reliably by hand

   *  avoiding the fact that SQL-like languages can experience a complexity 
blowup when given tasks that can be stated succinctly in executable English 
rules -- see e.g. [1]

I hope this helps.  Do you by any chance have your test data sets, and also 
the real data, in pure triple format?

                                     HTH,  -- Adrian

[1] 
www.reengineeringllc.com/Oil_Industry_Supply_Chain_by_Kowalski_and_Walker.pdf




INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R)
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared, community use is FREE.

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029


At 02:29 PM 12/12/2005 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Something that might be of relevance to recent discussion of semantics of 
>SPARQL ...
>
>As I understand it, RDF & OWL semantics are built on the open world 
>assumption, which means that, beyond arriving at a logical inconsistency, 
>it doesn't really make sense to 'validate' RDF or OWL data.
>
>However, both publishers and consumers of RDF data may wish to perform 
>'quality' or 'integrity' checks on their RDF data, before it is published 
>or as it is consumed, to ensure that certain standards are being adhered 
>to, or certain potentially problematic patterns are found.
>
>A little while ago I wrote up an idea to use SPARQL queries to generate 
>test reports for RDF graphs, an idea that is analagous to the use of 
>schematron for XML instances, and did a test implementation [1].  Based on 
>this work, I've written up some 'test cases' specifically relating to the 
>use of SKOS Core [2]. I'd be interested in any feedback or comments 
>regarding this work.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alistair.
>
>[1] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/
>[2] 
>http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/drafts/integrity.html
>
>---
>Alistair Miles
>Research Associate
>CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>Building R1 Room 1.60
>Fermi Avenue
>Chilton
>Didcot
>Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>United Kingdom
>Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 22:35:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:24:52 GMT