Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec]

Irene,

Since we agree that many people want to use OWL in CWA+UNA mode, do
you think there should be a W3C spec that describes it?

-- Arthur

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> < There is no W3C standard for using OWL with closed world
> and unique naming assumptions. >
>
> There is no de jure standard, but this is how many people are using it today.
>
> They either don't understand OWA or they take time to understand it and then decide to ignore it, because they don't need OWA ever or there are parts of their processing where they don't need/want it. They decide to 'close the world' themselves sort of say.
>
>  They do need a modeling language for declaring classes and properties. OWL has it, so they use it. In my experience, majority of people do something like this.
>
> Irene
>
>
>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Holger,
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "Only in that situation my point is that the SHACL core language alone
>> would be a step backwards in the evolution of the semantic web space,
>> because it will cause a fragmentation of the market without adding
>> much that OWL didn't already have."
>>
>> I disagree. There is no W3C standard for using OWL with closed world
>> and unique naming assumptions. That is why OSLC Resource Shapes was
>> created after consultation with OWL experts. It would therefore was a
>> good step forward if we had a W3C standard that was at least as
>> expressive as OSLC Resource Shapes. If you think OWL can provide that,
>> then you should propose a W3C standard based on OWL. Otherwise, let's
>> not continue to claim that just because many people think that OWL can
>> express constraints that it actually does.
>>
>> -- Arthur
>>

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 17:00:15 UTC