Re: Wondering about an example of closed world validation

On 08/01/2014 02:39 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>     Sure there are lots of ways of proceeding.  You may believe that
>     without-reasoning is better.  I may believe that with-reasoning is better.
>  From my pov inference and validation are two different things, although they
> can complement each other in many cases.
>  From a Validation Standard perspective, mentioning the use of inferencing as
> a pre/post validation step option is perfectly fine, enforcing it is a
> completely different thing.

Well it's not as simple as just mentioning that inferencing is a pre/post 
validation step option, depending on how your validation process is defined. 
To make validation play well with inference you may have to be able to handle 
infinite sets and multiple models on one side and too-central-to-turn-off 
inferences on the other.

> [clipped]
>     PS:  DBpedia is a very poor examplar for showing anything with respect to
>     applying inferences because it automatically applies certain inferences
>     and not others.
> Excuse me but my inference experience is limited and when you mentioned "RDFS
> closure" I though you were referring only to RDFS inferencing (not OWL
> inferencing).

This is all RDFS inferencing.  DBpedia automatically applies some RDFS 
inferences (type-superclass at least) and not others (domain and range).

> Dimitris

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 18:00:09 UTC