Re: Wondering about an example of closed world validation

On 07/31/2014 12:01 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I would say instead that messy data is better validated in a setting where
>     consequences have been made explicit and thus that DBpedia is an argument in
>     the other direction.

[Long example removed.]


> I am in no way against reasoning, I am just against being the norm. I am sure
> we can find many examples that each approach fits better
> But without reasoning things can work very well as well. For instance
>   dbo:city has dbo:City as range and dbr:Lambeau_Field is a dbo:Settlement
> so just checking the range of dbo:city would be sufficient.
> The exact same option would be sufficient with Harry_Froboess, reasoning would
> either hide the error or other constraints might re-reveal it.

Sure there are lots of ways of proceeding.  You may believe that 
without-reasoning is better.  I may believe that with-reasoning is better. 
However, ShEx and Resource Shapes appear to only allow without-reasoning, 
which I think is completely broken.

> IMHO there is no best way to deal with the domain / range issue. My approach
> is to report errors when it is different than expected and warnings when it is
> missing

Well, there are certainly issues having to do with how to recover from 
validation problems.

> Dimitris

peter

PS:  DBpedia is a very poor examplar for showing anything with respect to 
applying inferences because it automatically applies certain inferences and 
not others.

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 20:42:58 UTC