Re: using classes to control constraints

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

Classes are things that you assert membership in.  Shapes are things that
you recognize membership in.

I'm certainly open to other syntaxes.

peter



On 02/09/2015 09:19 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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: 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU22g3AAoJECjN6+QThfjzFO0H/0T7jNxV8z2tZJD+wtK9SUp0
CyFpMZlwQzesivZSRWYYnrca/XUSDkL8XIEKD9jona2mx2CE1Ku4t8+1NeiYEogD
4OBOuVRUfZvdRp5ELqwZCvi2ZqCOxHAQYi+8D4bKEfcDvIMSR+e9qTNoyEq9ZDNs
6AxxEHD6Ci1GsaWwVElTPmfHI9KwJbJpvrWnGPM5Ug9XgOCskswe/2mnTTNHauUC
UF3awP6vble8v3JCwxpHElfpchjExZwEOsiGpt7RqTgOfhxN1eDZE2um2aYW7OLl
hHSiM9Qpri5yHsp1zxuuPjKZsV5eZFJxVwYnlDAMM1MI04YcONuProckcE36qKk=
=QJ1w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:33:58 UTC