- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:03:57 -0700
- To: <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
> From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> > Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:58:24 -0400 > To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org> > Message-ID: <OFF14B15B5.802B33E2-ON85257D0A.004C62E1-85257D0A.005240FE@ca.ibm.com> > > I'd like to back up a little and discuss the need for something other than > OWL and SPARQL. [...] > Another important requirement is that a constraint language should be > independent of any vocabulary or ontology since it is often the case that > an RDF document combines terms from multiple sources. Both OWL and RDFS > fail on this count. I believe that this is false. Can you provide examples where OWL or RDFS fail on this count, particularly where the combination of multiple sources contributes to the failure? [...] > Regards, > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Arthur Ryman, PhD > > Chief Data Officer, Rational > Chief Architect, Portfolio & Strategy Management > Distinguished Engineer | Master Inventor | Academy of Technology > > Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) > > peter
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 14:04:34 UTC