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

Re: Should we say "data model"?

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:00:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHb4HxhN+ws0621uTFC_OMr=ouMrwaBvMOjgAh03FB+W=5A1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul <paul@proxml.be>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Yes, it might (assuming you were addressing me) although it may be too late
now. We re-used the OWL namespace mostly out of habit, not from some
particular goal or aim (well, to not break existing tools like Protege
which knew how to manipulate that *syntax* -- that was the main goal)...
But at this point I'm not sure a different namespace is going to change
anyone's mind. :>

Cheers,
Kendall


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Paul <paul@proxml.be> wrote:

> Would using different namespaces help in acceptance?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:02:10 UTC

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