On Sep 25, 9:38 am, "Bohms, H.M. (Michel)" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Once in a while we ask ourselves: what is the best way to model numerical
> constraints.
> In the past we used SPIN/SPARQL constraints but can't we do it more
> rdf/rdfs/owl-based?
Michel; I don't see the distinction you are trying to raise. For
example, the OLW 2 RL profile written in SPIN **is** OWL based. It is
an implementation of OWL rules. It also does all of the OWL-based
consistency checking.
Please note the distinction between consistency checking and
constraints. OWL consistency checks cover just a few FOL (first-order
predicate logic) inconsistencies, such as declaring that an instance
is a member of disjoint classes. Constraints cover any data
relationship that can be computed by the reasoner - SPARQL in the case
of SPIN.
> Like simple example: SmallCar being subclass of Car with length property
> where SmallCar has length < 2 ('meter' acc. to nasa ont.)
>
> (Or subclasses for "requiredItems" as subclasses limiting the solution space
> in case of configuration processes).
>
> Kind of hasValue but then more flexible "hasLessThanValue etc.
>
> Guess all this is OWA-related like the examples
> in:http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/1476/expressing-constraints-...
>
You can write SPIN constraints for all of these. It is not part of
RDFS or OWL inferences, though, by definition of the standards.
-- Scott
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary
Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live,
TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages 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
