Re: Should we say "data model"?

Can you give some examples of these "more complicated constraints" that OWL
cannot represent?

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:

>  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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kendall@clarkparsia.com');>>:
>>>
>>>   On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bernard Vatant <
>>>> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
>>>  ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
>