Re: ShEx relation to SPIN/OWL

On 7/10/14, 6:59 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> IMHO, it would be somewhat confusing to have two completely different
>> semantics for OWL.
>
> I don't think so.  You are using the same semantics by and large, but
> instead of inferencing you are checking.

This assumes that the "checking" rules and the intended OWL inferences 
are 100% compatible. I believe there may also be the assumption that the 
ontology being "checked" is essentially private -- that there are no 
other uses or users of the properties whose context is different.

As someone from a community that shares widely (libraries, archives, 
museums), and where properties are used in many different contexts, the 
only axioms that should be attached to the ontology itself must be 
universal in nature. If the ontology constrains a property like "author" 
with an owl:maxCardinality for the purposes of checking, the effect of 
that on the data in the open web would be too restrictive for some uses 
within that community.

I think it comes down to the context within which you will be creating 
and sharing your data. If you operate in a closed or semi-closed 
environment, then OWL constraints may work for you. The LAM community 
instead is looking at development of "least ontological commitment" for 
sharing, with a sharable constraint language for those creating data and 
sharing in a more limited context.


-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 16:12:36 UTC