Re: a view of SPIN constraints

I'm not claiming that there is any practical relevance of this, nor am I 
denying that there is any practical relevance.  All that I am saying is that 
it appears that SPIN does not completely abide by the semantics of RDFS.

Whether this is relevant to the working group depends on how the working group 
views the relationship of anything that it produces to RDF and RDFS.

peter


On 11/03/2014 08:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 07:14:21 UTC