Re: relevant paper on using OWL (description logics) for RDF validation

On 10/26/14, 8:52 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I'm not sure how this would work.  Are you saying that taking an 
> arbitrary RDF graph containing some OWL axioms and adding the right 
> imports triple would be all that is needed to pass the graph into a 
> SPIN processor and get the behaviour you state above?  This doesn't 
> seem possible.

Why not? SPIN doesn't care about inferencing. If someone wants to run 
constraint checks over an OWL model then it needs to run the SPARQL 
processor over a graph that has the additional inferences visible. The 
same applies for any other inferencing mechanism such as a rule language.
>
> In any case, this doesn't seem to be the way that constraint 
> validation should work.  You need at least three kinds of information 
> - data, axioms, and constraints - and this appears to provide only two 
> of them.
Why? Which aspect is missing?

>
>> Another question I have is how you would address the issue of 
>> redefining the
>> semantics of the OWL vocabulary that already has numerous books and 
>> papers
>> written about it, all explaining the details of a rather different 
>> open-world
>> semantics. That issue could suggest that a fresh start with a new 
>> vocabulary
>> (such as Shapes) might be a better option than confusing the market 
>> with a
>> semantically overloaded vocabulary.
>
> I don't see this as a problem at all.

I do, and I have heard this concern from many other people already.

Holger

Received on Saturday, 25 October 2014 23:02:32 UTC