Re: DPV semantics: how to specify values?

On 27/05/20 17:26, Harshvardhan J. Pandit wrote:
> Thanks Piero - I agree that we need guidelines and indications.
> And my next suggestion was going to be iterating through the different 
> approaches to demonstrate possible representations and where they might 
> excel/suffer. E.g. OWL2 work you suggested for automatic compliance 
> checking (as you have in SPECIAL)
> 
> At the same time, we need a single consistent style for smaller examples 
> within the Primer and other documents.
> 
> Best,
> Harsh


It depends on whether the primer contains examples of compliance 
checking. For such examples I would recommend *not* to use RDFS.

At the same time, given that compliance checking is a major application 
of the vocabularies, I would also expect to see this use case in the primer.

This would lead to two possibilities (at least):

a) illustrating 2 or more encodings in the primer, which makes sense as 
there is no "single consistent style" for all purposes.

b) accelerating on the JSON-like syntax and use it as a uniform 
meta-language, to be mapped on RDFS or OWL2 depending on the use case.

Option a) is not as bad as it seems. One may have a separate section for 
each use case. The contents of consent and data requests may be the same 
in all sections, so the reader may easily compare the different encodings.

This would help also in overcoming the purely psychological fear of OWL2 
- the Big Bad Wolf. As everyone can see from my encoding examples, the 
OWL2 encoding is actually not complicated; on the contrary, from a 
syntactic perspective it is perfectly isomorphic to the RDFS encoding, 
so there is no rational reason for labelling it as "less understandable".

It is part of our duty to teach potential users how to get the best out 
of our vocabularies.  Accordingly, keeping the right encoding for 
compliance hidden from the users would not be in line with DPVCG's mission.

Best,
Piero

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2020 16:16:58 UTC