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

Re: Should we say "data model"?

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:42:11 +1000
Message-ID: <53D82343.7080307@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Let's wait and see what requirements this WG comes up with. Of course 
there is a large overlap between the various Shapes proposals and OWL in 
that they all support cardinality and range restrictions. If it was just 
about those types then yes reusing the terms (or local names) from OWL 
can work. However, as soon as you add a few things that OWL cannot 
syntactically represent, then you could just as well start from scratch 
and define a converter script (or on-the-fly-conversion). It will likely 
be cleaner and more honest to avoid confusion and have less ballast. And 
independent of a high-level vocabulary for end users, there is still a 
need to express more complicated constraints, and SPARQL is the best 
available language to represent those. All we need to agree on is a way 
to link SPARQL with RDF data models and SPIN is one proposal to do that.

And yes, TopBraid also used OWL with closed-world interpretation from 
day one, and it includes a SPIN library to interpret the OWL vocabulary 
for constraint checking - at least for the restriction subset of OWL and 
domains and ranges.

Holger


On 7/30/14, 4:00 AM, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:kendall@clarkparsia.com>>:
>>
>>             On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bernard Vatant
>>             <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>>             <mailto: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 <http://www.mondeca.com/>
>>         Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
>>         <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
>>         ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:42:45 UTC

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