* Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask]> [2014-10-01 13:35+0000]
> Hi Eric,
>
> here a working example for your OWL cardinality restriction:
Many thanks! Now I'll pester you with details...
> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
> @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms#> .
> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#> .
> @prefix : <http://www.example.org/OWL2InstanceData#> .
> @prefix owl2spin: <http://constraints.org/owl2#> .
>
> :time a owl:DatatypeProperty .
> :Obs
> rdfs:subClassOf [
> a owl:Restriction ;
Ahh yes, knowing that you're using SPIN I should have predicted that.
> owl:onProperty :time ;
> owl:cardinality "2" ] .
I tried turning this ↑↑↑ down to 1 and mis-spelling the instance data "tiem".
Does that work for you? I saw no errors flagged when I did that.
> :X
> a :Obs , owl:Thing , owl2spin:ToInfer ;
> :time "2014-09-30T12:34:56Z" .
>
>
> I revised the syntax a little bit.
>
> Then I added these 2 triples:
>
> :X a owl:Thing .
> :X a owl2spin:ToInfer
>
> I need :X a owl:Thing . as the starting point for the validation.
At the expense of great personal frustration (i.e. javascript
programming), I added some fanciness to the ShEx demo to select which
nodes will be validated, in case that inspires you to do the same.
> Ech individual which is a owl:Thing is validated.
> As every individual in the OWL world is a member of the class owl:Thing, this statement is semantically correct.
> But what we also could do is using other classes such as :ToValidate.
> These triples do not have to be stated in future version of the RDF validator, as they can also be inferred automatically if wished.
>
> For which individuals inference should be performed?
> This is exactly the same.
> Here you have to add the triple:
> :resource a owl2spin:ToInfer .
> These triples can also be inferred automatically if wished.
> This way you can choose if you want to use reasoning as part of the validation process or not.
>
> It is inferred that :X is assigned to the anonymous superclass
> [ a owl:Restriction ;
> owl:onProperty :time ;
> owl:cardinality "2" ] .
> And because of this the cardinality constraint is validated.
>
>
> 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 "Eric Prud'hommeaux [[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2014 14:11
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: AW: [RDF AP] Re-purposing OWL properties
>
> * Antoine Isaac <[log in to unmask]> [2014-10-01 13:34+0200]
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Separate Contraint Semantics and Ontology Semantics" is not ideal, because in absolute there could be an ontology language that allows to represents constraints. Actually OWL does that for some axioms. Its open world assumption makes it difficult to capture all constraints one would like to capture. But for example disjonction constraints work quite well in OWL.
> >
> > The requirement is rather about NOT using the syntax of a formal language, with a semantics that is different from the one of this formal language. For example Stardog-ICV interpretes rdfs:domain in a way that is different from the way it is interpreted in OWL.
>
> As far as I can tell, the heuristic employed by CWA/UNA systems involve the inference of types by nothing else.
>
> I'd like to play with http://tomcat4-rdfvalidation.rhcloud.com/rdf-validation/owl2 but I'm not getting errors on the following:
>
> Constraints
> :time a owl:DatatypeProperty .
> :Obs rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty :time ; owl:cardinality 1 ] .
>
> Data
> :X a :Obs ; :tmie "2014-09-30T12:34:56Z" .
>
> What am I screwing up?
>
>
> > Antoine
> >
> > On 10/1/14 1:21 PM, 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
> > >
> > >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]>
> > >
>
> --
> -ericP
>
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
>
> ([log in to unmask])
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
>
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
([log in to unmask])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
|