Re: using classes to control constraints

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In OWL constraints for RDF, OWL axioms are used as constraints.  However,
this doesn't make RDF(S) classes be constraints.

You still create RDFS ontologies in the normal way, and constraints don't
have a role to play there.  Or maybe you don't have an ontology at all.

It is only when you want to validate some data that the constraints play a
role at all, and the constraints don't play the role of classes or even part
of the description of a class.  You can have multiple constraint sets that
employ classes from a particular ontology depending on just how your data
needs to be.

Note in particular that if you need named shapes (a.k.a. closed world
recognition) that these named shapes are only used for recognition, i.e.,
there are no type links that make individuals belong to these shapes.


peter




On 02/07/2015 01:35 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 
> On 2/8/15 12:44 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I am very strongly in favour of having shapes be different from RDFS
>> classes
> 
> Hi Peter, would you mind explaining your statement above? Your original 
> proposal to the WG was OWL Closed World, which re-interprets restrictions
> with closed world meaning:
> 
> ex:Class a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; 
> owl:onProperty ex:property ; owl:minCardinality 1 ; ] .
> 
> The equivalent in LDOM is:
> 
> ex:Class a owl:Class ; ldom:property [ a ldom:PropertyConstraint ; 
> ldom:predicate ex:property ; ldom:minCount 1 ; ] .
> 
> Where do these approaches differ? If you would not accept the second
> syntax, do you have any other syntax than OWL that you would accept?
> 
> Thanks Holger
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU1pEMAAoJECjN6+QThfjzuIgH/2+cOT0mIz7o97vNipeTWGhV
iS8ZEZPmaZlYO5uXsL4F/nXrYnXkUK9z3bjbkj+CnrgvWNePsUKDs7MH1g883ME5
/vLsw2lWW94L/uSPmAT8Ug7ofpqoeYUhx/uZ/TjAKM1PK34JGlWhhWiarv7CdRDa
gCKq6dT3Beie0+CNRkuZdRCMDcJ1qZmkt4kMcutwKI8g4uw61aC3AhEkRucbF9Wc
FUTpw+74TrhSLki8kR/t6jyhWC4++ssc8gKr4bzsZOrpRcU3uUjvu96c9rcxkEVs
EfnRrizIHIPOqe0h8ynwdSPjSXOCF2QL5BqtZhRI2MczkD0klCAnIrWacuV5wJo=
=d0eC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 22:26:51 UTC