hoijui commented on issue #2973: URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2973#issuecomment-2612251795
Hmm.... So basically.. while in RDF 1.0, this check of eyeball (about missing, explicit datatype) was feasible and valid on the data level, it is now (RDF 1.1) only feasible/possible to check on the RDF serialization syntax level. Eyeball is not designed/setup to operate on this level. In this way I would say.. it is valid to just deprecate/remove this check,. and leave a note behind, documenting all that I learned now from you. Maybe there are other linters that operate on this level. I know about SHACL, and used it a tiny bit, but I am nowhere deep enough into that stuff to be able to raise issues yet. I wrote a small tool to convert OWL ontologies to SHACL shapes. I know that is not logically valid and people like you that know al the ins and outs of the two, will pull out their hair, but for people like me, who use a sub-set of OWL to write kind of data schemas for distributed databases, the two encode mostly the same data, just using different terms. I only use a hand full of properties (range, domain, sub-class, sub-property, type, cardinalities). It seems to basically work how I want it to, with the very limited testing I did so far. Eyeball-NG ... We got funding, and some of it is dedicated to make a basic linter for RDF& OWL. When organizing the funding, I was not aware that linters already exist (even though I searched in the past). Now I am aware, and decided it makes more sense to raise (one of them) from the grave. Really, we are more interested in OOPS, but the issue there is, that it is not open source (which is a requirement of the funding we got, and also one we have personally). The optimal scenario for us, would be to be able to raise eyeball from its (quasi) grave, _and_ convince the OOPs authors to make their tool Open Source, and then provide some cleanup/touch-up/general coding help after that. We are currently (today actually) an argument for that. If you have something to say regarding that that we might forward to them.. please do! (Note: we had almost no personal contact with them so far, but I am a big fan of their work (OOPS, LOV, and some other things)) I am mostly a software dev, and not so much an academic. for me, RDF OWL are IT tools, not so much what Biologists, philosophy people, pharma/medical people and what not, see in it. I don't write papers and such ... you get the idea. I would love for them and me to be able to work together on this stuff, as I think we would be much better off this way, as I am weak on the theory, specs and deep intrinsics, but could improve their code quality (they are acedemics, foremost) some, I think. I plan to actively use eyeball myself, regularly (CI), for all of our ontologies and at least one of a friend. In the best case, it could also be integrated into LOV, or even into OOPS (as they are both written in Java), and then it could benefit all ontologies on/users of LOV. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
