JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  October 2014

DC-ARCHITECTURE October 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: AW: [RDF AP] Re-purposing OWL properties

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:23:07 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (138 lines)

On 10/1/14, 4:21 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> 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

How about:

Separation of Constraints and Ontology Semantics


I think it will need a rather precise definition, and I'm happy to 
contribute to that. I believe that the bottom line is that the 
validation constraints must not alter the semantics of the underlying 
ontology. It's a matter of thinking about both the closed world and the 
open world at the same time. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 
"meaning" is entirely the role of RDF/OWL, and that the application 
profile exercises data creation and management constraints. The things 
called "constraints" in OWL are actually axioms that permit one to infer 
meaning from relationships between properties, but do not constrain, in 
the data quality sense, at all. So it's constraints on the AP side, and 
semantics on the RDF/OWL side.

kc


>
> 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]]&quot; im Auftrag von &quot;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]>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager