 |
 |
Using SPARQL to validate seems like tremendous overhead. From the Gerber abstract: "A total of 55 rules have been defined representing the constraints and requirements of the OA Specification and Ontology. For each rule we have defined a SPARQL query to check compliance." I hope this isn't 55 SPARQL queries per RDF resource. Europeana's review of schematron indicated what I pointed out earlier, that it confines one to using RDF/XML, which is "sub-optimal" in their own words. One could accept RDF in any serialization and then run it through an RDF processor, like rapper (http://librdf.org/raptor/rapper.html), into XML and then validate. Eventually, when XPath/XSLT 3 supports JSON and other non-XML data models, theoretically, schematron might then be able to validate other serializations of RDF. Ditto for XForms, which we are using to validate RDF/XML. Obviously, this is sub-optimal because our workflow doesn't yet account for non-XML data. We will probably go with the rapper intermediary process until XForms 2 is released. Ethan On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 9/16/13 6:29 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I'd suggest that perhaps the confusion arises because "This instance is >> (not) 'valid' according to that ontology." might be inferred from an >> instance and an ontology (under certain conditions), and that's the soul of >> what we're asking when we define constraints on the data. Perhaps OWL can >> be used to express conditions of validity, as long as we represent the >> quality "valid" for use in inferences. >> > > Based on the results of the RDF Validation workshop [1], validation is > being expressed today as SPARQL rules. If you express the rules in OWL then > unfortunately you affect downstream re-use of your ontology, and that can > create a mess for inferencing and can add a burden onto any reasoners, > which are supposed to apply the OWL declarations. > > One participant at the workshop demonstrated a system that used the OWL > "constraints" as constraints, but only in a closed system. I think that the > use of SPARQL is superior because it does not affect the semantics of the > classes and properties, only the instance data, and that means that the > same properties can be validated differently for different applications or > under different contexts. As an example, one community may wish to say that > their metadata can have one and only one dc:title, while others may allow > more than one. You do not want to constrain dc:title throughout the Web, > only your own use of it. (Tom Baker and I presented a solution to this on > the second day as Application Profiles [2], as defined by the DC community). > > kc > [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/12/**rdf-val/agenda<https://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/agenda> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/**wiki/images/e/ef/Baker-dc-** > abstract-model-revised.pdf<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/images/e/ef/Baker-dc-abstract-model-revised.pdf> > > > - --- >> A. Soroka >> The University of Virginia Library >> >> On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:00 PM, CODE4LIB automatic digest system wrote: >> >> Also, remember that OWL does NOT constrain your data, it constrains only >>> the inferences that you can make about your data. OWL operates at the >>> ontology level, not the data level. (The OWL 2 documentation makes this >>> more clear, in my reading of it. I agree that the example you cite sure >>> looks like a constraint on the data... it's very confusing.) >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) >> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSNwe2AAoJEATpPY**SyaoIkwLcIAK+**sMzy1XkqLStg94F2I40pe >> 0DepjqVhdPnaDS1Msg7pd7c7iC0L5N**hCWd9BxzdvRgeMRr123zZ3EmKDSy8X**ZiGf >> uQyXlA9cOqpCxdQLj2zXv5VHrOdlsA**1UAGprwhYrxOz/**v3xQ7b2nXusRoZRfDlts >> iadvWx5DhLEb2+**uVl9geteeymLIVUTzm8WnUITEE7by2**HAQf9VlT9CrQSVQ21wLC >> hvmk47Nt8WIGyPwRh1qOhvIXLDLxD9**rkBSC1G01RhzwvctDy88Tmt2Ut47ZR**EScP >> YUz/bf/qxITzX2L7tE35s2w+**RUIFIFc4nJa3Xhp0wMoTAz5UYMiWIc**XZ38qfGlY= >> =PJTS >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >