On 6/24/2014 17:46, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:
if we just treat inference rules as constraints why would we ever
bother to develop SPIN (and ways to automatically treat inference
rules as such)
Not sure what you mean. SPIN has an explicit distinction between
constraints and inferences, and both have separate use cases that have
proven to be important and suitable for practical applications. In fact
SPARQL is far more expressive than OWL and therefore covers more
relevant use cases such as computations and literal manipulations. OWL
does have some suitable use cases for inferencing as well (mainly
classification problems), but it was not designed to be a constraint
language. However, the latter is what the majority of people seem to
expect the OWL vocabulary to mean, despite years of training and marketing.
I feel a bit like if we’re going to treat rdf/rdfs/owl in a bit
informal way (potentially different informally ways) we’re losing the
benefits all together and better go back to UML, XSD, EXPRESS, NIAM etc.
No I don't agree with that. Even if you would remove the whole OWL DL
aspect, RDF/OWL would still have many advantages over the technologies
that you mention. In particular it provides a means to express globally
linked data models where everything can be addressed with a URI. In
contrast, XML and UML objects do not have such a notion of identity.
Furthermore, RDF/OWL is extensible and self-describing - classes are
data on their own. None of this requires the model-theoretic semantics
that for some reason have been developed in conjunction with the RDF/OWL
standards. It would indeed be straight-forward to redesign a standard
that reuses most of the system vocabulary (URIs such as owl:Restriction)
from the current RDF/OWL but redefines their meaning to be in alignment
with mainstream "object" models such as JSON. Most of the published
ontologies out there would still be perfectly useable with such a W3C
standard, and a lot of historic ballast could be moved into the parallel
universe of DL and other theoretical interpretations of that vocabulary.
(Sorry for drifting a bit off-topic from the original question that was
really just about a tiny aspect of the direction in which
rdfs:domain/range statement should be interpreted!)
Cheers,
Holger
--
-- 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 Insight, 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 Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
