W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Is there a way to specify a data format based on RDF ?

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:32:57 +0100
Message-ID: <46712769.5030906@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@univ-rennes1.fr>
CC: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>

Andrea Splendiani wrote:
>>> RDF just isn't well suited for describing structures that MUST  
>>> include a particular field.  (You *can* do this, but then you're  
>>> ignoring RDF's semantics, and just treating it as a weird database).
>> Additional assumptions are not quite the same as ignoring the 
>> semantics :-)
>> In engineering terms there is often a point where you have to say
>> "whilst the world is open this is all the data I'm actually going to
>> get and I have to check if this data is complete enough to meet the
>> assumptions of my next processing step". That doesn't stop you
>> benefiting from the flexibility of the open world assumption right up
>> to the point where you have perform a closed-world model check in order
>> to proceed (e.g. actually send a message to that address).
> Yes and...
> is there a way to formalize these extra contraints ?
> If I want to provide a documentation about them, to define an exchange 
> message ? Or a post-pre-requisite valid "content" ?

I was suggesting using OWL restrictions (esp. cardinality and hasValue 
restrictions) and performing closed-world model checking on your data 
against that OWL.

Other than integrity rules (for which there is no semantic web standard) 
then another approach would be to perform schematron-style syntactic 
validation by specifying SPARQL queries which should or should-not 
return results from querying the message.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 11:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC