Re: standard 1 week extension for W3C RDF Validation Workshop submissions

Consider adding Common Logic (CL) to the technologies under
consideration for the RDF Validation Workshop. I have had some success
writing RDF validation rules in XCL (the xml syntax for CL) and
converting them to SPARQL for various purposes, including validation.
Two interesting questions arise:

1. Which sorts of RDF validation use cases *can't* be expressed in CL?
2. What are the requirements and characteristics of a "CL2SPARQL"
mapping to support RDF validation (and, for that matter, RDF use cases
beyond validation that call for application of logic)?

Pat Hayes described the possible mappings between CL and RDF in

I don't know if it is susceptible to formal analysis, but there would be
some practical benefits of defining the range of CL constructions that
can be mapped to SPARQL. Call this CL2SPARQL.

Motivations for using CL2SPARQL include:
1. Put business rules in a standard rule language and repurpose for data
validation and reporting. (Same CL source can be used to generate
2. Apply logical tools to the CL source to check for consistency,
coverage, etc.
3. Summarize and display rules for human consumption.
4. Rules are easily integrated into linked data framework.

Probably beyond the scope of the workshop are the specific technical
topics that would need to be addressed by CL2SPARQL. However, these
should be noted in order to evaluate this potential solution. These
issues include:

1. Various possibilities for mapping negation, and their relationship to
open/closed worlds.
2. Modes of implication. The logical conditional can be interpreted in
different practical ways.
3. SPARQL OPTIONAL. In logic, this seems to translate to '(or (exists
(x) ..) (not (exists (x) ...)))', which is tautological, so there must
be some implied existential conditional involved that would make this
appear more sensible in CL.
4. Composability of Common Logic texts to make SPARQL queries.
5. Logic of aggregate functions.
6. Logic of lists and collections.
7. Useful extra-logical extension points for Common Logic that would
have practical benefits for CL2SPARQL (for example, indicating what
variables to include in SELECT clause).


On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 11:17 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> We got lots of requests for extension and the amicable PC have opted
> to give *everyone* an extension. I'd like to hear more domain-specific
> use cases, e.g. clinical, financial, though of course tooling and
> technology submissions are welcome as well. Please see
> for inspiration or fodder.
> I've been trying to keep up to
> date with respect to comments and suggestions. Please let me know if
> you think other technologies should be represented or if you can
> supplement it with nice examples of existing tech. I'd also like to
> hear from those who work with schema languages for other models,
> e.g. RelaxNG, to hear what use cases motivated what features.
> Please forward to any potentially interested parties. Thanks!
> * Eric Prud'hommeaux <> [2013-06-24 19:20-0400]
> > W3C's hosting a workshop on interface definitions for RDF data.
> > 
> > If you want to tell users how to use some RDF service, or find out how
> > to use an existing service, you need some mechanism for defining
> > interfaces. If you then want to mechanically complete client data or
> > validate graphs posted to a service, you need a tool which exploits
> > that mechanism. In either case, please help us meet your needs by
> > submitting use cases and proposals to the W3C RDF Validation Workshop.
> > 
> > If you've got great ideas for languages or re-use of existing tools to
> > solve these sorts of use cases, you may want to submit those as well.
> > 
> > Please read through the CFP and send any questions or comments to me
> > ( or the PC ( If you think this
> > should go to other lists, please forward. Thanks!
> > 
> >      RDF Validation Workshop - Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data
> >      10-11 September 2013, Cambridge, MA, USA
> >      <>
> > 
> > While the Semantic Web has demonstrated considerable value for
> > collaborative contributions to data, adoption in many mission-critical
> > environments requires data to conform to specified patterns. This need
> > for interface defintions spans domains. For instance, validation in a
> > banking context shares many requirements with quality assurance of
> > linked clinical data. Systems like Linked Open Data, which don't have
> > formal interface specifications, share these validation
> > needs. Development of standards and tools to meet these requirements
> > can greatly increase the utility and ubiquity of Semantic Web data.
> > 
> > Most data representation languages used in conventional settings offer
> > some sort of input validation, ranging from parsing grammars for
> > domain-specific languages to XML Schema, RelaxNG or Schematron for XML
> > structures. While the distributed nature of RDF affects the notions of
> > "validity", tool chains need to be established to publish interface
> > definitions and ensure data integrity.
> > 
> > This workshop combines discussion of use cases for data
> > validation/interface defintion on the Semantic Web with development of
> > technologies to enable those use cases.
> > 
> > If you are interested in presenting, please submit a position paper by 
> > 30 June 2013. If you need a short extension, please contact the PC.
> > 
> > See additional Workshop details and submission instructions:
> >     <>
> > 
> > The workshop is hosted by MIT. For further details, please contact Eric 
> > Prud'hommeaux <>
> > 
> > -- 
> > -ericP

Received on Sunday, 30 June 2013 00:08:08 UTC