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
>