- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:38:54 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 7/16/14, 11:16 PM, Dam, Jesse van wrote: > Hi,... > Another thing you can not do in OWL is to define the following: > Type A -> ex:samepred1 -> Type B > Type C -> ex:samepred1 -> Type D > If you would define this in OWL you will also get, because OWL is property oriented and a property can only define a range and domain > Type A -> ex:samepred1 -> Type D > Type C -> ex:samepred1 -> Type B > Which is something we do not want. I would use owl:allValuesFrom in local restrictions to express that in the context of A, samepred1 can only have B etc. > > Secondly as noted on the wiki i will be using it to generate user interface forms and interface code, which can not be done with neither OWL or SPIN, but can be done with OSLC ResourceShapes. We use SPIN declarations also to drive user interfaces. If you are interested look at SPARQL Web Pages and its SWA library (links on TopQuadrant's web page). In a nutshell, to display an input form for instances of a given class, we have SPARQL-based logic that looks at - rdfs:domain/range definitions - local owl:Restrictions (owl:allValuesFrom, cardinality) - any declared spin:constraints, especially spl:Argument definitions but also other template calls These are fairly good heuristics to determine which properties are "relevant" for the class. It also shows in practice that most people out there make use of RDFS and OWL constructs to tell other people and applications about how valid instances should be created. Whether this is good or bad is another question, but that's the reality. Most people in my experience don't care about open world semantics, but of course nobody would admit that because it's against the specs and thousands of academic papers. Cheers, Holger
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 04:39:25 UTC