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

Re: Should we say "data model"?

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:42:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVG_2V8Boz31fvjdNcaHuZ51+Z26nUq5m4-LPeFVTUm2-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Hi Kendall

I did not want to point at any specific syntax, but since you mention it ...
Reusing OWL syntax with a closed world interpretation is of course a
seductive path (which I've been following myself, as said before) but I've
always been a bit uneasy about it. OWA is built in the OWL Recommendation.
I would rather have a neutral language, with non-ambiguous open world
interpretation in OWL, and another one in any closed-world language (SPIN,
SPARQL, you name it).

2014-07-29 18:07 GMT+02:00 Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>:

> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bernard Vatant <
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
>>  Does that mean that we are looking for something (language, format,
>> whatever) that could be interpreted either with the open world assumption
>> to support open world reasoning, and (exactly the same piece) interpreted
>> in closed world applications as a constraint for interfaces or a validation
>> rule?
> I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but this is precisely what
> Stardog ICV does using OWL syntax and is (to my knowledge) the only such
> system that does. But, alas, it does not appear that there is consensus in
> the likely Validation WG to put that on the recommendation track. A
> mistake, in my view, but there you go. :>
> Cheers,
> Kendall


*Bernard Vatant*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 17:43:16 UTC

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