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

Re: AW: Thoughts on validation requirements

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:10:10 -0700
Message-ID: <53D7B952.1090306@gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
CC: "Bosch, Thomas" <Thomas.Bosch@gesis.org>, "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>

On 07/28/2014 12:35 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto: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.

OK.  One would then have to understand RDF, which is fine, because the 
information is in RDF. Then one would have to understand this constraint 
reformulation of the basic constraints, including value constraints, typing 
(range/domain) constraints, number constraints, and so on.

This is all OK so far, but why do this all over again, when there are already 
formalisms that do it?

> 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
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 15:10:46 UTC

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