Should have been "and the current discussion will *not* resolve the issue."
(apologies and self-directed arrrrrgh) -- Scott On Dec 2, 11:33 am, Scott Henninger <[email protected]> wrote: > Michel; Going back to the original question, there are constraints > that can be expressed in SPARQL/SPIN that cannot be expressed in OWL, > and the current discussion will resolve the issue. Holger gave one > concrete example of a constraint that cannot be expressed in OWL: > > # the area of a rectangle must be width * height > ASK WHERE { > ?this ss:width ?width . > ?this ss:height ?height . > ?this ss:area ?area . > FILTER ((?width * ?height) != ?area) . > > } > > Any computation like this, including checking string patterns (think > SS number), cannot be cast as a classification problem and therefore > isn't expressible in OWL. OWL does not perform constraint violation > checking, only consistency checking. To the extent that you can cast > the problem into a FOPL consistency problem, OWL solutions may be > possible, if a bit obtuse. For expressing general constraint checks, > OWL is very limited. > > OWL is fine for the use cases it is designed for, but it was never > intended as a general-purpose computational engine. SPARQL covers a > much broader area of computation, with OWL being one subset, and > therefore will cover use cases OWL can't. SPIN utilizes SPARQL's > expressiveness for constraint checking and other features, and is > therefore able to express many constraints that OWL cannot. > > -- Scott > > On Dec 2, 3:21 am, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Right, thx! > > > So my "owl-sparql" would actually sparql 1.1 addressing this, in some > > sense... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch > > > Sent: donderdag 2 december 2010 10:05 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] Re: Advantages of SPIN SPARQL > > > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > > > > I see all that. > > > > Still I think there is conceptually someway room for a > > > standardized layer on top of sparql (somehow) that > > > standardizes the more semantic things the tools like jena now > > > do in their implementation once they see the graph is an owl graph. > > > > Yes, this is on track to be covered by SPARQL 1.1: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/#Entailment > > > > Holger > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which > > > include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, > > > SPARQLMotion and SPIN. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected] > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en > > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER > > athttp://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
