T1: Recursive Structures (S4, S9, S21) T2: Model/Data Validation (S1, S2, S21) T3: Dataset Partitions (S17, S18) T4: Compliance/Governance (S21) T5: Closed-world recognition for access control (S5), for partial ontology import (S6) T7: Value Validation (S11) T8: Interoperability (S12, S14) T9: Nuanced validation (S3) Created by: Dean Allemang Validate RDFS (maybe also OWL) models The basic issue here is to ensure that the right kind of information is given for each property (or class) in the model, for example, to require that each property has to have a domain, or that classes have to be explicitly stated to be under some decomposition.Input data: the RDF representation of an RDFS (or OWL) ontology Input ontology: the ontology that represents RDFS (or OWL) syntax Each property has to have a specified domain that is a class: Note: Because this story works with the built-in RDF, RDFS, and OWL vocabulary, the prohibition of using this vocabulary in OWL axioms would have to be lifted.
Note: This story was not about constraints, but described a solution to the "different shapes in different contexts" scenario.
This is an example of very complex constraints that require many features that are present in SPARQL to represent model-specific scenarios, including the comparison of incoming values against a controlled fact base, transformations from literal values to URIs, string operations, date comparisons etc.
Details: EPIM Reporting Hub SPIN was used to represent and evaluate those constraints.
When OK is pressed, a server callback is made to verify all if constraints have been violated.
If violations exist, they are presented to the user and depending on the severity and server settings, the user may continue without fixing the errors.