Re: using classes to control constraints

Peter,

Could you clarify this more? I don't see the contrast you are trying to
communicate and I am not sure what you mean by "recognized".

Class membership is asserted. However, it can also be inferred which I am
interpreting the same as "recognized".

I don't think membership in the shape is recognized if by "recognized" you
mean that there is some computational process that decides whether
something is a member of a shape or not. It is asserted in a sense that a
statement is made about the membership.

In the end, however, they both have members.

Irene

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----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-----
>
>