On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/27/2014 02:36 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote: > >> Hi Dimitris >> >> >> >> Although I do not have any industry experience in this field, I have the >> following to note from my related research. >> >> If we want RDF to become mainstream we shouldn't expect people to learn >> OWL, >> logics & Manchester syntax in order to formulate or understand a simple >> constraint. >> They should exist somehow but should be moved as many levels up as >> possible. >> Similarly for SPARQL. >> >> > What do you suggest should be the minimal level of learning to be able to > formulate or understand a simple constraint? Please include examples of > simple constraints that can be formulated and understood using only this > level of learning. I know that everything I say here will have a OWL, SPIN or whatever equivalent that will do the job and there has been many examples in this list before. Personally I would prefer a language that (re)defines basic constraints like domain, range & cardinality and does some basic calculations on objects (e.g. patterns, string functions, language tags) This means that the basic level of understanding would be RDF and allowed values in subjects / predicates / objects, what is a class / property and the meaning of rdfs domain & range. Beyond that, I would prefer to provide SPARQL expression snippets e.g. (p1 > p2). So SPARQL querying would be an additional requirement for more advanced rules Dimitris > > > peter > > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Research Group: http://aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 07:36:48 UTC