- From: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:34:37 +0200
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Thanks, looks interesting. I've also found related work: https://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/koblenz/fb4/institute/IFI/AGStaab/Research/systeme/NetworkedGraphs/ But there does not seem to be a library one can use with, say, Sesame. On Jul 24, 2009, at 15:43 , Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > Did you look at SPIN? > > http://spinrdf.org/ > > That should allow you do do a lot with data without leaving the now > mainstream Semantic Web technology stack (as long as a small > fragment of OWL is sufficient for you). > > Best > Martin > > > Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> I'm currently reading Hendler's brilliant book "Semantic Web for >> the Working Ontologist". It really drove home the point that OWL is >> not a good fit when using RDF for *data* (names are generally not >> unique, open world assumption, ...). >> >> But what is the alternative? For my applications, I have the >> following requirements: >> >> - Properties: transitivity, inverse, sub-properties. >> - Resources, classes: equivalence. For my purposes, equivalence is >> a way of implementing the topic merging in topic maps [1]. >> - Constraints for integrity checking. >> - Schema declaration: partially overlaps with constraints, serves >> for documentation and for providing default values for properties. >> - Computed property values: for example, one property value being >> the concatenation of two other property values etc. >> >> The difficulty seems to me to find something universal that >> fulfills these requirements and is still easy to understand. >> Inference, when used for transitivity and equivalence, is simple, >> but when it comes to editing RDF, they can confound the user: Why >> can some triples be replaced, others not? Why do I have to replace >> the triples of a different instance if I want to replace the >> triples in my instance? >> >> While it's not necessarily easier to understand for end users, I've >> always found Prolog easy to understand, where OWL is more of a >> challenge. >> >> So what solutions are out there? I would prefer description logic >> programming to OWL. Does Prolog-like backward-chaining make sense >> for RDF? If so, how would it be combined with SPARQL; or would it >> replace it? Or maybe something frame-based? >> >> Am I making sense? I would appreciate any pointers, hints and >> insights. >> >> Axel >> >> [1] http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/index.html#desc-merging >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: mhepp@computer.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > ================================================================= > > Webcast: > http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > > Recipe for Yahoo SearcMonkey: > http://tr.im/rAbN > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based > E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe > > Project page: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Resources for developers: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations > > Tutorial materials: > CEC'09 2009 Tutorial: The Web of Data for E-Commerce: A Hands-on > Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! > SearchMonkey http://tr.im/grcec09 > > <martin_hepp.vcf> -- Axel.Rauschmayer@ifi.lmu.de http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~rauschma/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 14:35:15 UTC