On 9/16/13 6:29 AM, aj...@virginia.edu wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd suggest that perhaps the confusion arises because "This instance is (not) 'valid'
according to that ontology." might be inferred from an instance and an ontology (under certain
conditions), and that's the soul of what we're asking when we define constraints on the data.
Perhaps OWL can be used to express conditions of validity, as long as we represent the quality
"valid" for use in inferences.
Based on the results of the RDF Validation workshop [1], validation is
being expressed today as SPARQL rules. If you express the rules in OWL
then unfortunately you affect downstream re-use of your ontology, and
that can create a mess for inferencing and can add a burden onto any
reasoners, which are supposed to apply the OWL declarations.
One participant at the workshop demonstrated a system that used the OWL
"constraints" as constraints, but only in a closed system. I think that
the use of SPARQL is superior because it does not affect the semantics
of the classes and properties, only the instance data, and that means
that the same properties can be validated differently for different
applications or under different contexts. As an example, one community
may wish to say that their metadata can have one and only one dc:title,
while others may allow more than one. You do not want to constrain
dc:title throughout the Web, only your own use of it. (Tom Baker and I
presented a solution to this on the second day as Application Profiles
[2], as defined by the DC community).
kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/agenda
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/images/e/ef/Baker-dc-abstract-model-revised.pdf
- ---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:00 PM, CODE4LIB automatic digest system wrote:
Also, remember that OWL does NOT constrain your data, it constrains only the
inferences that you can make about your data. OWL operates at the ontology
level, not the data level. (The OWL 2 documentation makes this more clear, in
my reading of it. I agree that the example you cite sure looks like a
constraint on the data... it's very confusing.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSNwe2AAoJEATpPYSyaoIkwLcIAK+sMzy1XkqLStg94F2I40pe
0DepjqVhdPnaDS1Msg7pd7c7iC0L5NhCWd9BxzdvRgeMRr123zZ3EmKDSy8XZiGf
uQyXlA9cOqpCxdQLj2zXv5VHrOdlsA1UAGprwhYrxOz/v3xQ7b2nXusRoZRfDlts
iadvWx5DhLEb2+uVl9geteeymLIVUTzm8WnUITEE7by2HAQf9VlT9CrQSVQ21wLC
hvmk47Nt8WIGyPwRh1qOhvIXLDLxD9rkBSC1G01RhzwvctDy88Tmt2Ut47ZREScP
YUz/bf/qxITzX2L7tE35s2w+RUIFIFc4nJa3Xhp0wMoTAz5UYMiWIcXZ38qfGlY=
=PJTS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
