Hi Tom,
there has been a lot of discussion of this topic on the W3C RDF Validation mailing list, with lot's of pros and cons using OWL and OWL 2 for RDF validation.
I also see the need for such a requirement.
This requirement is not in the requirements database so far.
What would be an identifier of such a requirement?
Let me try:
Separate Contraint Semantics and Ontology Semantics
Do you have a better one?
There is a requirements class 'constraint semantics'.
I would assign this requirement to this class.
We also have requirements which are fairly related:
R-140-SEPARATE-ONTOLOGIES-FROM-VALIDATION-SCHEMAS
R-173-SEPARATE-CONSTRAINTS-FROM-VOCABULARIES-AND-ONTOLOGIES
R-177-DEFINE-SEMANTICS-FOR-CONSTRAINTS
-----
regarding the meaning between "domain as a means of enabling inference" (the OWL sense) and "domain as a way to bind properties to classes"
I think it is important to choose if you want to use reasoning when using OWL for RDF validation.
The RDF validator can be used for RDF validation with and without inferencing.
Cheers,
Thomas
--
Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
PhD Student
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Social Science Metadata Standards
Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
Web: http://www.gesis.org
Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
GitHub: https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD
________________________________________
Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Thomas Baker [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2014 12:34
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [RDF AP] Re-purposing OWL properties
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:05:08AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/playRecording?recordID=12797906&meetingInstanceID=ICWDUC9I93MGCE3CLXLPUZVPSX-JV0D
I tried to join yesterday -- it was 23:00 here in Seoul -- but couldn't
get a WebEx connection after five attempts. I did however get a chance
to listen to the recording today. I'm sorry I couldn't be there live,
because I'm trying to catch up with the discussion, and apologies in
advance if the points I make have already been discussed and decided.
Apart from the glitch that addresses do not know people, the DSP demo
was very nice! However, I get very uneasy when I see OWL2 axioms being
treated as "constraints" in a DSP sense (i.e., interpreted according to
CWA). I agree with Karen, if I correctly understood her point, that
this is "dangerous territory".
On the call, that discussion was postponed for a later date, but I look
forward to having that discussion as soon as possible because I think it
is fundamental.
As I see it, the whole question of how a constraint language relates to
RDF vocabularies and ontologies is one of the most important and basic
_requirements_ for the constraint language itself. The requirement is
that a constraint language not replace (or "hijack") the original
semantics of properties used in the data. I get uneasy, for example,
when OWL cardinality axioms are treated as "constraints" according to a
closed-world, unique-name assumption, or by using rdfs:domain or range
axioms as if they were expressing mandatory graph patterns.
In my recollection, the difference in meaning between "domain as a means
of enabling inference" (the OWL sense) and "domain as a way to bind
properties to classes" was a source of confusion when the Schema.org
vocabulary first appeared, because the early, now-deprecated
representations of the Schema.org vocabulary in OWL translated
Schema.org domains as rdfs:domain, whereas the Schema.org data model now
makes clear that a much looser definition is intended -- one that has
more to do with documenting intention than with enabling inference [1]:
We have a set of properties:
each property may have one or more types as its domains. The
property may be used for instances of any of these types.
each property may have one or more types as its ranges. The
value(s) of the property should be instances of at least one
of these types.
Has it been proposed to express as a requirement, alongside the other
requirements, the notion that the constraint language not impose an
alternative interpretation on existing semantics?
Tom
[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF-Application-Profiles/ExamplesFormalConstraints#R-25-OBJECT-PROPERTY-DOMAIN
[2] http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|