W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > July 2014

Re: using Shape Expressions to validate RDF graphs

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:46:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CADE8KM6Ro=-eFYmbP22-BmEUo-kcMNrZX0VhGv2p120wEdzJEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:

> I currently do validation of the sort that I think Peter is talking about,
> using custom sparql queries, where I verify what roughly corresponds to owl
> Restrictions (cardinality, allValues, someValues) except at the syntactic
> level (are there triples present) rather than the semantic level (like a DL
> reasoner would do)

Depending on the choice of SPARQL entailment regime, you could even be
doing both...

The Integrity Constraints Validation system (ICV) for OWL 2, as described
in  Pérez-Urbina et. al. (2010 )
<http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html> and  (Tao et. al. 2010a
<http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~taoj2/publications/ic-tr-2010-0607.pdf>, 2010b
<http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI10/paper/viewFile/1931/2229>) was
 implemented as an extension to Pellet, with constraint processing
implemented as mappings into SPARQL.

ICV uses a separate OWL 2  Document for the constraints (keep your
epistemics out of my ontology!)

There's some interesting artifacts of when the documents were written;
Pérez-Urbina et. al. use the old "!bound" syntax whilst talking about the
upcoming  SPARQL 1.1 "NOT EXISTS" syntax; Tao et. al. didn't feel bound to
do pretend they were doing so (I wonder which SPARQL engine they could
possibly have been using :-)

[The date of publications also suggest why the ICV proposal might not have
been advanced on a recommendation track.   OWL-WG was in a suspended state
waiting on the completion of XSD 1.1;  the charter was sufficiently
restrictive that it could barely do anything with the completed XSD 1.1. ]

is that what we really want to say, is that a person has at most one spouse
> (depending on cultural and temporal issues) and that spouse is a person,
> and may have other properties.
> Does the shape expression prohibit more than one spouse? Does the shape
> expression prohibit having a spouse that is a non-Person?
> ===
> (The last time I was discussing this topic in the Semantic Web lists I
> believe there was some controversy about gender and same-sex marriage …., I
> am glad we are pass that stage!)

Oddly enough, this morning I was reading a survey instrument used as part
of the SOAS study on the effect of  Fairtrade on employment and poverty
reduction;  one of the standardized codings for marital status was
"polygamous".   Fortunately polygamy is easy to handle in a DL.
 Generalized polyamory might require at least description graphs.


Pérez-Urbina, H., Sirin, E., and Clark, K. (2010). Validating RDF with OWL
Integrity Constraints. Technical report, Clark & Parsia, LLC.  Available
at: http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html

Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., and McGuinness, D. L. (2010a). Integrity
Constraints in OWL. Technical Report 2010-0607, Dept. of Computer Science,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Available at:

Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., and McGuinness, D. L. (2010b). Integrity
Constraints in OWL. In Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, Atlanta, Georgia. AAAI Press.  Available at:
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 22:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC