Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <> [2014-11-26 02:23-0800]
> On 11/25/2014 10:22 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <> [2014-11-25 16:20-0800]
> >>On 11/25/2014 02:14 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >>>* Holger Knublauch <> [2014-11-19 22:36+1000]
> >>>
> >>>>                                     For the majority of use cases
> >>>>you would end up with Shape objects that are mirroring classes,
> >>>
> >>>I disagree that the majority of shapes would be global invariants.
> >>>But regardless, the fact that we don't want to write off the other use
> >>>cases implies that we must not require a model which forces one to
> >>>retract one schema when looking at another when both should be associated
> >>>with particular interfaces.
> >>
> >>What does "global invariant" mean here?
> >>
> >>There is no way that constraints can be truly global, i.e., that
> >>every use of RDF has to include them all.  I don't see anyone
> >>arguing that the mere use of a class requires the use of all
> >>constraints associated with that class, which perhaps could be
> >>considered to be akin to a global invariant.  All other setups for
> >>constraints appear to be situational, i.e., not global.
> >
> >Three messages "up" in this thread, I was arguing just that. See
> ><> (attached).
> >
> >I agree re "situational". As a counter example, the FOAF ontology
> >*could* say that foaf:mbox had a cardinality of one, but that would
> >needlessly restrict its usage. (At TPAC, Tantek beat me up about
> >having cardinalities attached to vocabulary definitions. After a sound
> >drubbing, I managed to explain that he was beating up the wrong guy.)
> >
> >
> >>peter
> >
> I don't see in that message that you are arguing for either true
> globality, that all users of RDF commit to all constraints, or even
> mention globality, that all users of something like foaf:mailbox
> commit to all constraints that mention foaf:mailbox.
> Note that I'm not stating that no one has argued that constraints
> that are part of an ontology (if this is possible) must be in force
> for all users of that ontology.  I would even argue for this.  I'm
> not even stating that no one has argued constraints that are part of
> an ontology (if this is possible) must be in force for all users of
> vocabulary defined in that ontology.  I, however, argue against
> this, just like I argue against vocabulary mention requiring
> ontology use.

If I don't owl:includes foaf:, can I use foaf:mbox in a way that is
specifically inconsistent with its definition in FOAF, e.g. having it
not being an IFP, possibly representing my shoe size? If so, where do
we get interop? If not, is there a boundary around foaf:box ?p ?o for
which I am responsible when I utter foaf:mbox?

> Why do I argue against vocabulary mention requiring ontology use?
> Consider DBpedia.  The DBpedia ontology has many problems, including
> incorrect subClassOf relationships.  It should be possible to use
> the DBpedia class vocabulary, and even the entire DBpedia graph,
> with committing to the DBpedia ontology.

Is Danbri mischievous enough to add a deliberate inconsistency to test
this issue? IIRC, he started FOAF 'cause said "but RDF could be used
to track everyone. That's horrible; now what would that look like?"

> peter


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 10:45:31 UTC