Hi Holger, see after >>>
Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Sr. Research Scientist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Location<http://www.tno.nl/locaties/DTM> [cid:[email protected]]<http://www.tno.nl/> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch Sent: woensdag 25 juni 2014 4:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] domain ' inheritance' 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. >>>clearly I see the benefit of more power. I was more thinking about the >>>same-power stuff, automatically trasnfrom/interpret. restrictions to SPIN so >>>that they can be treated as constraint (and in the guid you can have >>>validation of data etc.). 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!) >>ok, see your point. I was more thinking about actual benefits of the things >>you want to do away with as ballast to DL…. Gr Michel 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]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- 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.
