Hi Scott maybe I am wrong but although SPIN is itself owl-based (meta-wise) I still see a difference in directly owl-based (only dependent on a standard) and a rule/constraint as a language that has to become a standard first....
but ok, the message is like : when you want constraints modelled take the spin/sparql route... what brings me to...what is the current status and outlook of spin and the actual acceptance as constraint language? and, is there a potential overlap with RIF developments? (like I see in http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-dtb-20100622/) sorry if the question is already wrong, I am a bit newbee in this rule stuff gr Michel 2012/9/25 Scott Henninger <[email protected]> > 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 > > > -- -- 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
