- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:42:52 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, 'Dean Allemang' <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, 'Holger Knublauch' <holger@topquadrant.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
One option for extending the constraint power of an OWL solution would be to add some features from SWRL. This could either be SWRL itself or expressions that use SWRL functions. I wasn't advocating the use of Z, just pointing out that it could be an option. Basing a solution on the RDF semantics would require work similar to a solution based on the OWL semantics. A solution using an algebra on RDF graphs and datasets might look very much like SPARQL. Perhaps there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs to be fixed so a parallel solution has to be developed. My email wasn't advocating any particular position, just pointing out that there are potential alternatives to SPARQL. peter On 11/24/2014 04:20 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > Dean, > > Your messages are indeed getting through. > > It seems to me that another issue with using OWL to do the kind of definitions > you are describing is that it can’t (to my knowledge) cover a set a fairly > common constraints such as start date must be before the end date. I presuming > here that this category of constraints is accepted as a requirement. I believe > Peter suggested addressing this issue by using SWRL, so this option would be > OWL+SWRL. Is this correct? > > Peter identified a couple of other options: > > ·Z – I don’t think this is a viable idea as it introduces a new language when > there are already good options within the RDF stack > > ·RDF semantics – can this work? And how? > > ·Algebra on RDF graphs and datasets – can this work? And how? > > Irene >
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 13:43:22 UTC