Re: Relevant documents on SPIN

What I am trying to get at is how SPIN constraints interact with OWL 
constructs, and RDFS constructs as well.  The reason I ask is that there has 
been talk of SPIN constraints working with OWL and RDFS constructs.

Maybe there is no interaction.  Maybe the way things work is that SPIN 
constraints work directly on an RDF graph (i.e., there is neither RDF 
inference nor RDFS inference nor OWL inference of any kind).  However, then 
there has to be some careful description of how SPIN constraints are 
implemented, as they are attached to classes, and class instance is generally 
tied up with RDFS inference.

There has also been discussion of SPIN constraints involving at least three 
different kinds of input, all of which appear to be treated differently. 
However, it appears that this division cannot be maintained in the way that 
SPIN constraints appear to need.  The example that I gave is that ontologies 
can include individual objects, which I think should be considered by constraints.

Maybe this distinction is only used to make some discussion easier, and does 
not have any real impact on SPIN constraints.  However, some of the 
distinction appears to have an important role in SPIN constraints.

peter

On 10/26/2014 12:44 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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 20:22:27 UTC