Re: AW: Thoughts on validation requirements

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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?


Of course OWL is an option and I was in favor of that option some time ago.
However, I would rather enforce simplicity rather than have it as an option
A very successful example where this worked for RDF is schema.org


>
>
>  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