constraints - OWL 属性(property)限制与 SHACL

Question

在 OWL Property Restrictions 之间做出选择和 SHACL ，还有什么理由再选择 OWL 方法吗？

特别是在基数约束方面，我想知道是否认为 SHACL 取代了 OWL。语法看起来与我的随意检查相似。

我可能错过了 OWL 基数约束的目的。作为本体的一部分，它们应该促进推理(与验证不同的关注点)。但是基数约束如何促进推理呢？

Answer 1

OWL 和 SHACL 之间的差异如下表所示。


猫头鹰
沙克


基于开放世界假设
基于封闭世界假设

为推理而设计
专为验证而设计

计算成本低(典型问题是可判定的)
?

很多推论几乎“开箱即用”
必须手动定义很多约束

作为 RDF 的文档很有用



至于 OWL 中的基数约束，这些约束允许在某些情况下在某些方面关闭世界，以获得额外的推论。
基数约束的逻辑在 OWL 和 SHACL 中是相反的。非正式地:
在 SHACL 中，

ex:PersonShape
    a sh:NodeShape ;
    sh:targetClass ex:Person ;
    sh:path ex:parent ;
    sh:minCount 1 .`

意味着如果某人是一个人，那么他/她必须至少有一个 parent 。
在猫头鹰，

ex:Person owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                                 owl:onProperty ex:parent ;
                                 owl:minCardinality "1" ] . `
                        

意味着如果某人至少有一个 parent ，那么他/她就是一个人。

来自 TopBraid marketing materials :

How is SHACL different from RDF Schema and OWL? RDFS and OWL were designed for an “Open World” in which data may be assembled from many places on the Semantic Web. This design goal has caused a lot of frustration over the years, because it made it impossible to check even the most obvious integrity constraints, such as whether a property has a certain number of values. In contrast, SHACL assumes a “Closed World”, aligning with the expectations of typical business users. Furthermore, OWL has been optimized for a certain type of classification problems, yet it could not be used to do routine operations necessary for data validation such as mathematical computations or text operations. SHACL is much more expressive. Further it seamlessly integrates with SPARQL to express almost arbitrary conditions. BTW it is perfectly fine to incrementally extend an RDFS or OWL model with SHACL statements, supporting both worlds.

另见: http://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html