Re: fundamental issues

On 2/13/15 4:45 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> <But the fact is that I expect my data to ALSO be available in a
> web-based environment that 1) uses the open world assumption and 2) is
> where anyone can say anything about anything.>
>
> You may have some data about books or publications that you curate and
> quality check internally and you also make it accessible to others by,
> for example, providing a SPARQL endpoint for it or a Linked Data API or
> whatever.
>
> Resources in your data have URIs and, as you made these URIs publicly
> known, other people could make statements about these URIs that you
> don't agree with. They could also take the data you are making available
> and run some reasoning over it using OWA.

I feel like I've said this many times before, but obviously not clearly 
enough. I cannot design my data for a single validation function because 
I intend for it to be re-used by other applications, known and  unknown 
to me, that will need to employ a different view of the data. My data 
must be "public" in the broadest sense. This is why I resist using 
classes that define units of validation rather than their intended 
semantic use.

I want to define my data with a minimal ontological commitment precisely 
because my data only gains value as it is re-used. Therefore, validation 
needs to be a function separate from my ontology and must not require 
modifications to my instance data.

The Dublin Core Description Set Language [1], which is DC's early 
attempt at defining validation and application profiles, is designed to 
allow users to keep constraints out of their ontologies and instance 
data, while using the DSP as a mediation between highly flexible data 
and the momentary needs of a single application. Note that the dcterms 
vocabulary makes very little use of domains/classes, and that is 
intentional. I understood ShEx as taking a similar approach, although 
that may not be the current picture.

kc
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-dsp/




>
> What problem does this present and what does it have to do with the
> topic of this discussion?
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2/13/15 10:26 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>         But that’s not the generally accepted meaning of “open world”
>         and “closed world”. These terms refer to two specific modes of
>         data processing (a.k.a. reasoning), e.g., in validation and
>         querying. Open-world reasoning is when you assume there could be
>         additional data “out there” that you just don’t know about yet,
>         so “missing ain’t broken”. Closed-world reasoning is when you
>         assume that your dataset is complete, so “missing” is a
>         validation error.
>
>
>     Yes, there is "open world assumption" and "closed world assumption"
>     that are modes of data processing. Note I carefully did not use
>     those terms. There is also "LOD" which talks about open data, but
>     makes no statement about mode of processing. So what shall we call
>     the difference between the open web and my private, internal data
>     store? Is it open vs. enterprise? But the fact is that I expect my
>     data to ALSO be available in a web-based environment that 1) uses
>     the open world assumption and 2) is where anyone can say anything
>     about anything.
>
>     kc
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 02:04:02 UTC