RE: Relevant documents on SPIN

Peter,

When I read your constraints originally, I thought you were just using a short hand for convenience - there are supposed to be more triple patterns in the WHERE clauses that actually say what is the constraint and you are skipping writing these down to save time.

Now I am beginning to think that what you have been identifying as constraints is exactly what is in the WHERE clause, meaning that these classes should have no instances at all.

Which one is true?

Irene

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:21 PM
To: Holger Knublauch; public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Relevant documents on SPIN



On 10/25/2014 08:37 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 9:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Consider the following situation:
>>
>> Domain graph:
>>  a rdf:type A .
>> Ontology
>>  B = { b }
>> Constraints
>>  spin:constraint [ sp:text """ CONSTRUCT { _:cv a 
>> spin:ConstraintViolation } WHERE { ?this rdf:type B } """ ]
>>
>> Is there a constraint violation here or not?  Where is this behaviour 
>> specified?
>
> [I assume you meant to write a rdf:type B above].

No.  What I may have stupidly forgotten was to put B as the subject of the constraint.

The point is that individuals may come from the OWL ontology, not the domain graph.

> It would be a constraint violation, because there would be a SPIN 
> constraint that looks for owl:oneOf triples under closed-world interpretation.

[...]

> Holger
>
>


peter

Received on Sunday, 26 October 2014 19:45:18 UTC