Re: using classes to control constraints

Hi Peter,

your email below seems to clarify how OWL Closed World would work. But I 
don't see a response to my questions at the end of my previous email in 
this thread (at the bottom here), especially on whether you would accept 
any other syntax than OWL at all.

Thanks,
Holger




On 2/8/2015 8:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----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 Tuesday, 10 February 2015 05:19:59 UTC