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 http://google.com/+BernardVatant -------------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca* 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris www.mondeca.com 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