Re: a view of SPIN constraints

Peter,

do you have evidence that these cases are of any practical relevance?

Thanks
Holger


On 11/4/2014 13:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Well not only subproperties of rdf:type but also subproperties of 
> rdfs:subClassOf.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 11/03/2014 12:58 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>> On 11/4/14, 3:06 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> One aspect of this definition is that SPIN does not completely abide 
>>> by the
>>> RDFS definition of the instances of classes.
>>
>> Could you clarify - do you mean sub-properties of rdf:type?
>>
>> And in general, it is not the goal of SPIN to have full RDFS support. 
>> RDFS
>> doesn't have intuitive semantics, esp rdfs:domain and range are a 
>> source of
>> frequent user pain.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>> On 10/31/2014 01:04 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> Yeah that looks right. I think we only need to define the semantics 
>>>> of the
>>>> CONSTRUCT case and treat ASK as syntactic sugar with default values 
>>>> for the
>>>> constructed ConstraintViolations.
>>>>
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/1/14, 4:05 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> Here is my reconstruction of how SPIN constraints work, based on 
>>>>> my reading
>>>>> of various SPIN documents and various presentations about SPIN 
>>>>> constraints.
>>>>> Please let me know if anything is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conceptually a SPIN constraint system takes in two inputs:
>>>>> 1/ an RDF graph
>>>>> 2/ a set of SPIN constraints
>>>>>
>>>>> Each SPIN constraint is attached to a class and provides a 
>>>>> constraint in the
>>>>> form of a SPARQL query fragment plus an optional SPARQL construct 
>>>>> clause.
>>>>> The surface syntax may not always look like query fragments and 
>>>>> construct
>>>>> clauses, but the only things that determine the meaning of a SPIN
>>>>> constraint are the query fragment and construct clause that can be 
>>>>> generated
>>>>> from the surface syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> A constraint with SPARQL query fragment F on class C is satisfied 
>>>>> if the
>>>>> SPARQL query
>>>>>    ASK {
>>>>>      ?this rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* C .
>>>>>      F }
>>>>> returns no bindings for the graph G
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a construct clause X then the result of the constraint 
>>>>> is the
>>>>> result of the SPARQL query
>>>>>    CONSTRUCT { X }
>>>>>    WHERE {
>>>>>     ?this rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* C .
>>>>>     F }
>>>>> evaluated against the graph G.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 04:35:38 UTC