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

Re: Should we say "data model"?

From: Paul <paul@proxml.be>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:58:31 +0200
Message-Id: <A0D0C9B3-80FE-4C3F-8C0A-1AAD320BD49C@proxml.be>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Would using different namespaces help in acceptance?

Kind regards,


> On 29-jul.-2014, at 19:46, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I appreciate that concern. Everyone keeps telling me that this seems like a problem in principle; apparently we're the only ones who built it *as a real thing* and *in practice* it's not a problem at all. Our customers don't find it in the least bit confusing. In fact, as we originally said, most people who wanted OWL always wanted closed world semantics anyway, so giving it to them is a big win.
> Oh well. :>
> Cheers,
> Kendall
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 17:59:02 UTC

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