Re: encoding prov-constraints in prov-o

We've been having an internal discussion about the constraints with 
regard to XML as well. Schematron (www.schematron.com) has ways of 
encoding more complicated business rules than the schema such as we have 
in the constraints, so could conceivably be used for that type of 
validation.

We seem to be converging on leaving that out for now, concentrating on 
the XSD for the format itself.

I like the idea of leaving that 'implementation' as a later activity.

Curt

On 08/27/2012 12:07 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just got back from a nice holiday and have been catching up on email.
>
> One thing I wanted to comment on was the idea of encoding the
> constraints in owl.
>
> I'm happy for someone to do this but personally I think we should
> treat it as "implementation" of the constraints - just like I will
> implement the constraints as sparql.
>
> In particular, I'm worried about the bandwidth of the group as a
> whole. There are a number of documents that need to be done and we
> also need to start the work of responding to comments for our core
> documents.
>
> I know there is a feeling in the group that this would be good to do
> but I wanted to start a conversation about whether this should be done
> here or not.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
>
>


-- 
Curt Tilmes, Ph.D.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20006, USA

+1 202-419-3479 (office)
+1 443-987-6228 (cell)
globalchange.gov

Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 16:17:41 UTC