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

Re: comparing to OWL and SPIN

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:09:21 -0700
Message-ID: <53CD02F1.20909@gmail.com>
To: "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 07/21/2014 04:43 AM, Dam, Jesse van wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to thanks you and the others for the useful discussions. I feel ashamed that I did not know about ICV.
> I need some time to think about and look at the many points given, before I continue on the discussion.
> Here my answer on your mail.
>> It certainly does appear that there are mappings between ShEX, OWL, and SPIN.
>> I'm not sure about that any of these mappings are total, but they may be.
>> Even if there are inclusion relationships, this does not imply that the
>> simpler setup is faster (in theory or in practice).
> Sorry if you misunderstood my statement, I did say it has to be true, but is something that could be tested. I could be that the Regular Expression derivatives algorithm, although much less expressive then OWL, is outperforming the OWL reasoners.  Only some research and testing will give an useful answer, but certainly something nice to consider and test.

Yes, this could be tested.  I expect that StarDog ICV will perform very well, 
as it works by translation into SPARQL queries.

>> Your assertion that shapes and shape properties is better for users is nothing
>> more than assertion so far.  Do you have anything to back this up?
>> OWL has disjunction, so you can say
>> A <= all ex:samepred1 (B or E)
>> which is even better than the ShEx version you give.
> No I do not have, expect the personal experience related to learning none computer scientist users to use the semantic technologies for their purposes. For them some of the OWL features are complex and not directly useful for my users. I must admit I could try to use the Manchester syntax on my users.
>> Note that I am not saying that an OWL reasoner will do constraint checking
>> directly out of the box, just that OWL (and RDFS) semantics (and syntax) can
>> be used to specify constraints.  An OWL-based constraint checker would do
>> things like reporting errors, just as any other constraint checker does.
> That was exactly one of the problems I had, where do I tell the reasoner to do inference of new triples where should it report an error. However I was not aware of ICV. So I will check it out and see how I can use and how relates to SHEX.

Well, you could do as StarDog ICV does.  There are the facts, the ontology, 
and the constraints.  The ontology is treated as ... an ontology.  The 
constraints are treated as ... constraints.

>> I don't know why you say that OWL does not support graphs.  OWL models are
>> graph-like, and can be written as RDF graphs.  In some profiles of OWL there
>> is always a minimal model, and the graph for this minimal model can be used to
>> give the meaning of an OWL knowledge base.
> What I refereed here was the use of writing an ontology over different RDF graphs/contexts. So I can see for example that a certain property should reference a RDF graph, which should be validating a given set of OWL axioms. Or for example I can see that a certain triple should/can have some context attached to it, which should also validate.
> An example use case would be when I put provenance for a certain triple.
> :geneA :regulates :geneB :someprovenance
> :someprovenance :ref :paper1
> :someprovenance :evidence :experiment

Named graphs do add an extra something.  However, that extra something has to 
be handled by every approach, not just OWL-based approaches.

> Thanks,
> Jesse van Dam

Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 12:09:53 UTC

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