Re: [topbraid-users] Re: SPARQL to fetch metadata (from Metadata tab) of a Taxonomy

[Holger Knublauch]

You are probably looking for

        GRAPH ?teamGraph {
            ?teamGraph teamwork:lastUpdated ?lastUpdated
        }

as this triple is stored in the TCH graphs.

Holger



On 2/11/2018 2:32 PM, Sanjeev Devireddy wrote:

Hi,
  The below SPARQL returns all the metadata fields except the field 
*last updated. *Isn't this *last updated *field stored at the 
?projectGraph instance? If not then could you please help me to update 
the below SPARQL to get the last updated field also.


_SPARQL_
_
_
SELECT ?projectGraph ?p ?o
WHERE {
    rdf:nil teamwork:graphsUnderTeamControl ( ?projectGraph 
?teamGraph ) .

    GRAPH ?projectGraph {
    ?projectGraph a 
 .

    ?projectGraph ?p ?o .
    }
}




Thanks,
Sanjeev
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid 
Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [topbraid-users] Re: SPARQL to fetch metadata (from Metadata tab) of a Taxonomy

[Sanjeev Devireddy]

Hi,
  The below SPARQL returns all the metadata fields except the field *last 
updated. *Isn't this *last updated *field stored at the ?projectGraph 
instance? If not then could you please help me to update the below SPARQL 
to get the last updated field also.

*SPARQL*

SELECT ?projectGraph ?p ?o
WHERE {
rdf:nil teamwork:graphsUnderTeamControl ( ?projectGraph ?teamGraph 
) .
GRAPH ?projectGraph {
?projectGraph a 
 .
?projectGraph ?p ?o .
}
}




Thanks,
Sanjeev

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[topbraid-users] Re: Issue when using parameters on SWP service

[William Ramos]

Hi, Holger, thanks for the response. I was attempting a different approach 
with no success. About the error log I put above, yes it looks 
mis-formatted/broken but that's how it appears on the EDG application, 
after noticing that, I noted that on the Composer tool the error looks well 
formatted.

I'll contact you via email with more details.

Thanks.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Dear Irene, see below after >





Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D4722D.8DA91430]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Irene Polikoff
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 20:00
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

Michel,

RDFS+OWL offer users ability to define a large number of model patterns. In 
developing a translator, we did not have a goal to covert all possible 
patterns. This would have been quite hard and require a lot of effort. Instead, 
our goal was to help bootstrap moving to SHACL by covering roughly 80% of what 
a model may contain.

> of course I appreciate that. My statement was not in general but only on the 
> specifics dealing with rdfs:range conversion (I thought this would be clear 
> from my message). Anyway, please be assured I fully appreciate your 80% as it 
> is! So to be fully clear: I think your shacl conversion stuff is great. 
> Especially the way you do it via transparent  shacl is brilliant and a fine 
> showcase for its power!


We started by identifying ontologies to test the conversion with. One of these 
ontologies was FIBO (as described in the blog a gave a link to) and there were 
a few others. Quite likely these models did not have this particular pattern. 
Further, in some cases, there could be more than one way of 
interpreting/translating/mapping statements from the source ontology into SHACL 
shapes.

> of course I hope(d) that this rdfs:range as IMHO not-so-very-particular 
> pattern would be part of the 80% 


So, no. The converter is not complete. If it does not cover some common 
patterns in the ontologies you need to convert, then you can add a rule 
yourself by following the example. Some axioms/modeling styles can be very 
complex making it hard to create a general rule. The would then need to be 
dealt with in the case by case basis.

> see above (I never said something on completeness in a general sense). So 
> perfectly ok.
> and no, I have no intention to write rules myself! I am perfectly happy to 
> wait for your extensions that are then used consistently by all!


Your example is not complex to convert. Sometimes, a parent property may have 
no domain statement because it is there simply to support rdfs:subPropertyOf 
reasoning. It would then have child properties that declare a domain. IN any 
case, I see no harm in translating it the way you have suggested. One issue may 
be in figuring out convention for the URI of the newly generated property 
shapes. Converted is using - pattern for 
the property shapes that are resources. In this case, another convention is 
needed.

> yep, it would face the same naming convention issue as I would do it manually 
> myself indeed.


With respect to your question of generating global property shapes even when a 
domain statement exists, this would not be the most accurate translation. 
Domain statement says that all subjects of triples with the predicate equal to 
the property must be members of the domain class. Thus, there could not be :R 
:p :V where :p rdfs:domain :C and :R is not a SHACL instance of :C.

>true, but that was not my point. My point is that :R can still be an instance 
>of (also) another class (if my interpretation of rdfs:domain semantics is 
>right). And the range would then also be relevant for these other classes! And 
>this can only be done if the (global) range gets a global CWA/shacle 
>counterpart! And if not, the class specific variants will always be 
>‘incomplete’ (THAT was the specific potential incompleteness I was referring 
>too). But I am happy if you prove me wrong here! 

Formulated otherwise: my idea: a global owa constraint needs a global cwa 
constraint, kind of law of conservation of globalness 

Greetings, Michel



On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:38 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Thx all clear..i will define the range only stuff manually

One question stillarent the ranges for properties having a domain also not 
best treated with a separate global shacle shape? Since those ranges not only 
hold for the class at the domain but for all classes?
Said otherwise...is your current converter conplete?

[topbraid-users] TopBraid 6.1 Public Beta Announcement

[TopQuadrant Support]

Dear Users,

TopQuadrant is pleased to announce the Public Beta availability of TopBraid 
6.1!
TopBraid EDG version 6.1 has enhancements to the user experience as well as 
performance and scalability improvements. New features such as tabular 
editor inline edit, moveable columns, and basket make EDG even more 
flexible and user friendly. Users will also see exciting improvements to 
the underlying SHACL and GraphQL technologies.

For details, please see the 6.1 Release Notes:
https://www.topquadrant.com/release-notes-topbraid-6-1/

Downloads:
TopBraid Composer 6.1 Beta: 
http://www.topquadrant.com/downloads/topbraid-composer-install/

* Licensed EDG and TBL customers can access the beta versions of the 
enterprise server distributions at these links:
 - TopBraid Live download: http://download.topquadrant.com/live/
 - TopBraid EDG download: http://download.topquadrant.com/live/edg
 *Note that product documentation including user guides is still being 
updated and in some areas may be out of sync with the newly released Beta 
changes.

As always, we appreciate your participation in our Beta test program and 
look forward to your feedback.  Please submit your input by Friday, 
November 16th, 2018.

For questions, please do not hesitate to contact us:
http://www.topquadrant.com/company/contact/
 - TopBraid Suite Users forum: 
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users 
 - Composer support:  composersupp...@topquadrant.com
 - TopBraid Server products support (valid TBL, EVN, and EDG licenses): 
supp...@topquadrant.com, (Tel: +1 919-300-7945)
 - Sales: sa...@topquadrant.com

TopBraid Composer Mac OSX users please refer to our TBC FAQ for 
installation instructions. 

Thank you,

The TopBraid Team

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

[Irene Polikoff]

Michel,

RDFS+OWL offer users ability to define a large number of model patterns. In 
developing a translator, we did not have a goal to covert all possible 
patterns. This would have been quite hard and require a lot of effort. Instead, 
our goal was to help bootstrap moving to SHACL by covering roughly 80% of what 
a model may contain. 

We started by identifying ontologies to test the conversion with. One of these 
ontologies was FIBO (as described in the blog a gave a link to) and there were 
a few others. Quite likely these models did not have this particular pattern. 
Further, in some cases, there could be more than one way of 
interpreting/translating/mapping statements from the source ontology into SHACL 
shapes.

So, no. The converter is not complete. If it does not cover some common 
patterns in the ontologies you need to convert, then you can add a rule 
yourself by following the example. Some axioms/modeling styles can be very 
complex making it hard to create a general rule. The would then need to be 
dealt with in the case by case basis. 

Your example is not complex to convert. Sometimes, a parent property may have 
no domain statement because it is there simply to support rdfs:subPropertyOf 
reasoning. It would then have child properties that declare a domain. IN any 
case, I see no harm in translating it the way you have suggested. One issue may 
be in figuring out convention for the URI of the newly generated property 
shapes. Converted is using - pattern for 
the property shapes that are resources. In this case, another convention is 
needed.

With respect to your question of generating global property shapes even when a 
domain statement exists, this would not be the most accurate translation. 
Domain statement says that all subjects of triples with the predicate equal to 
the property must be members of the domain class. Thus, there could not be :R 
:p :V where :p rdfs:domain :C and :R is not a SHACL instance of :C.

> On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:38 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thx all clear..i will define the range only stuff manually
> 
> One question stillarent the ranges for properties having a domain also 
> not best treated with a separate global shacle shape? Since those ranges not 
> only hold for the class at the domain but for all classes?
> Said otherwise...is your current converter conplete?
> So what about in the future only generating global property shapes for all 
> ranges..with or without domain...in favour of the current shacl for the 
> domain classes?
> 
> Or am i now wrongly interpreting domain semantics? My assump. Is that a 
> domain clause says nothing about nondomain classes having the property
> 
> Gr m
> 
> Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Irene Polikoff [ir...@topquadrant.com]
> Received: donderdag, 01 nov. 2018, 17:58
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com [topbraid-users@googlegroups.com]
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question
> 
> Domains and ranges are transformed into Property Shapes as follows:
> 
> rdfs:domain statements are converted to property shapes connected to the 
> classes that are objects in {?property rdfs:domain ?object} statements. 
> Classes will get a rdf:type sh:NodeShape triple. If there is a rdfs:range 
> statement for the property, resulting shapes will have either sh:class or 
> sh:datatype constraint components that correspond to the range.
> 
> Thus, if a property does not have a domain statement, but has a range 
> statement, there will be no property shape generated. I can see how it would 
> make a sense in this case to generate a property shape with a 
> sh:targetSubjectsOf target, but it is not done at the moment. 
> 
> You can see the details on what is being converted here 
> https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/ 
> .
> 
> The file that contains conversion rules is available in the TopBraid/SHACL 
> project.
> 
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:43 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi David,
>>  
>> Wrt “Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …”, I’ll 
>> try to be more precise (please tell me if I am wrong)
>>  
>> With owa I meant OWL/RDFS open world interpretation
>> With cwa I meant SHACL closed world interpretation
>>  
>> In OWA/OWL we have two kinds of restrictions: 1) for a class (I call them 
>> local) and 2) for a property (I call them global).
>> Global ones are the universal ones: the hold for a property where ever they 
>> are applied in what ever class context.
>> So
>> - local > owl restrictions for classes
>> - global> o.a. rdfs domain/ranges for properties (datatype or object 
>> properties)
>>  
>> So I understand now that domain/ranges are not transformed into 

RE: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Thx all clear..i will define the range only stuff manually

One question stillarent the ranges for properties having a domain also not 
best treated with a separate global shacle shape? Since those ranges not only 
hold for the class at the domain but for all classes?
Said otherwise...is your current converter conplete?
So what about in the future only generating global property shapes for all 
ranges..with or without domain...in favour of the current shacl for the domain 
classes?

Or am i now wrongly interpreting domain semantics? My assump. Is that a domain 
clause says nothing about nondomain classes having the property

Gr m

Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)

-Original Message-
From: Irene Polikoff [ir...@topquadrant.com]
Received: donderdag, 01 nov. 2018, 17:58
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com [topbraid-users@googlegroups.com]
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

Domains and ranges are transformed into Property Shapes as follows:

rdfs:domain statements are converted to property shapes connected to the 
classes that are objects in {?property rdfs:domain ?object} statements. Classes 
will get a rdf:type sh:NodeShape triple. If there is a rdfs:range statement for 
the property, resulting shapes will have either sh:class or sh:datatype 
constraint components that correspond to the range.

Thus, if a property does not have a domain statement, but has a range 
statement, there will be no property shape generated. I can see how it would 
make a sense in this case to generate a property shape with a 
sh:targetSubjectsOf target, but it is not done at the moment.

You can see the details on what is being converted here 
https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/.

The file that contains conversion rules is available in the TopBraid/SHACL 
project.


On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:43 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Hi David,

Wrt “Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …”, I’ll 
try to be more precise (please tell me if I am wrong)

With owa I meant OWL/RDFS open world interpretation
With cwa I meant SHACL closed world interpretation

In OWA/OWL we have two kinds of restrictions: 1) for a class (I call them 
local) and 2) for a property (I call them global).
Global ones are the universal ones: the hold for a property where ever they are 
applied in what ever class context.
So
- local > owl restrictions for classes
- global> o.a. rdfs domain/ranges for properties (datatype or object properties)

So I understand now that domain/ranges are not transformed into shacl 
PropertyShapes.
They are only taken into account when their properties feature in a local owl 
restriction for a class resulting in local shapes in the context of a NodeShape 
for that class.

We see quite some use cases where properties have no domain (to keep them 
flexibly applicable) and are also not constrained for specific classes. In 
these situations we still want to have cwa shacl code to check the data aginst 
their range (datatype or class). But ok that is quite a different discussion 
topic.

Gr Michel



Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl
Location



This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.




From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 17:17
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question


On 1 Nov 2018, at 14:42, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
 wrote:

Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx

Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …

OWL Object and Datatype properties without an rdfs:domain and not mentioned in 
a restriction on a class do not result in property shapes as part of the 
OWL-to-SHACL rules.

The owl2shacl generation was implemented using rules, found in 
TopBraid/SHACL/owl2shacl.ttl,  so that it could be modified and/or extended or 
replaced by customers as they see fit. There may not be a one-size-fits all 
approach to the OWL to SHACL language conversion. The coverage of the current 
rules is explained on our Web site:

https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/

Properties with no related class are typically only created in generic, high 
level ontologies that are reused in more specific ontologies where they appear 
in restrictions. In that situation, the SHACL should be generated from those 

Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

[Irene Polikoff]

Domains and ranges are transformed into Property Shapes as follows:

rdfs:domain statements are converted to property shapes connected to the 
classes that are objects in {?property rdfs:domain ?object} statements. Classes 
will get a rdf:type sh:NodeShape triple. If there is a rdfs:range statement for 
the property, resulting shapes will have either sh:class or sh:datatype 
constraint components that correspond to the range.

Thus, if a property does not have a domain statement, but has a range 
statement, there will be no property shape generated. I can see how it would 
make a sense in this case to generate a property shape with a 
sh:targetSubjectsOf target, but it is not done at the moment. 

You can see the details on what is being converted here 
https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/ 
.

The file that contains conversion rules is available in the TopBraid/SHACL 
project.


> On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:43 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
>  
> Wrt “Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …”, I’ll 
> try to be more precise (please tell me if I am wrong)
>  
> With owa I meant OWL/RDFS open world interpretation
> With cwa I meant SHACL closed world interpretation
>  
> In OWA/OWL we have two kinds of restrictions: 1) for a class (I call them 
> local) and 2) for a property (I call them global).
> Global ones are the universal ones: the hold for a property where ever they 
> are applied in what ever class context.
> So
> - local > owl restrictions for classes
> - global> o.a. rdfs domain/ranges for properties (datatype or object 
> properties)
>  
> So I understand now that domain/ranges are not transformed into shacl 
> PropertyShapes.
> They are only taken into account when their properties feature in a local owl 
> restriction for a class resulting in local shapes in the context of a 
> NodeShape for that class.
>  
> We see quite some use cases where properties have no domain (to keep them 
> flexibly applicable) and are also not constrained for specific classes. In 
> these situations we still want to have cwa shacl code to check the data 
> aginst their range (datatype or class). But ok that is quite a different 
> discussion topic.
>  
> Gr Michel
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl
> Location
> 
>  
> 
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
> Behalf Of dprice
> Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 17:17
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question
>  
>  
> On 1 Nov 2018, at 14:42, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
>  
> Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx
>  
> Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …
>  
> OWL Object and Datatype properties without an rdfs:domain and not mentioned 
> in a restriction on a class do not result in property shapes as part of the 
> OWL-to-SHACL rules.
>  
> The owl2shacl generation was implemented using rules, found in 
> TopBraid/SHACL/owl2shacl.ttl,  so that it could be modified and/or extended 
> or replaced by customers as they see fit. There may not be a one-size-fits 
> all approach to the OWL to SHACL language conversion. The coverage of the 
> current rules is explained on our Web site:
>  
> https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/
>  
> Properties with no related class are typically only created in generic, high 
> level ontologies that are reused in more specific ontologies where they 
> appear in restrictions. In that situation, the SHACL should be generated from 
> those more specific ontologies, not the generic, high level ones. There’s a 
> similar issue with range-less properties, which OWL also allows.
>  
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl
> Location
> 
>  
> 
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  

RE: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Hi David,

Wrt “Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …”, I’ll 
try to be more precise (please tell me if I am wrong)

With owa I meant OWL/RDFS open world interpretation
With cwa I meant SHACL closed world interpretation

In OWA/OWL we have two kinds of restrictions: 1) for a class (I call them 
local) and 2) for a property (I call them global).
Global ones are the universal ones: the hold for a property where ever they are 
applied in what ever class context.
So
- local > owl restrictions for classes
- global> o.a. rdfs domain/ranges for properties (datatype or object properties)

So I understand now that domain/ranges are not transformed into shacl 
PropertyShapes.
They are only taken into account when their properties feature in a local owl 
restriction for a class resulting in local shapes in the context of a NodeShape 
for that class.

We see quite some use cases where properties have no domain (to keep them 
flexibly applicable) and are also not constrained for specific classes. In 
these situations we still want to have cwa shacl code to check the data aginst 
their range (datatype or class). But ok that is quite a different discussion 
topic.

Gr Michel




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D4720A.68B15AC0]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 17:17
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question


On 1 Nov 2018, at 14:42, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx

Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …

OWL Object and Datatype properties without an rdfs:domain and not mentioned in 
a restriction on a class do not result in property shapes as part of the 
OWL-to-SHACL rules.

The owl2shacl generation was implemented using rules, found in 
TopBraid/SHACL/owl2shacl.ttl,  so that it could be modified and/or extended or 
replaced by customers as they see fit. There may not be a one-size-fits all 
approach to the OWL to SHACL language conversion. The coverage of the current 
rules is explained on our Web site:

https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/

Properties with no related class are typically only created in generic, high 
level ontologies that are reused in more specific ontologies where they appear 
in restrictions. In that situation, the SHACL should be generated from those 
more specific ontologies, not the generic, high level ones. There’s a similar 
issue with range-less properties, which OWL also allows.

Cheers,
David





Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 15:11
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question





On 1 Nov 2018, at 13:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


Ok, thx

I think I have to reformulate my issue then.

Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment?
Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape.

Just tested this in Composer 6.0.0 by making an OWL object and OWL datatype 
property with no domains and no OWL classes in the graph. I don’t see anything 
referencing the two properties after 

Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

[dprice]

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 14:42, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx

Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …

OWL Object and Datatype properties without an rdfs:domain and not mentioned in 
a restriction on a class do not result in property shapes as part of the 
OWL-to-SHACL rules.

The owl2shacl generation was implemented using rules, found in 
TopBraid/SHACL/owl2shacl.ttl,  so that it could be modified and/or extended or 
replaced by customers as they see fit. There may not be a one-size-fits all 
approach to the OWL to SHACL language conversion. The coverage of the current 
rules is explained on our Web site:

https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/ 


Properties with no related class are typically only created in generic, high 
level ontologies that are reused in more specific ontologies where they appear 
in restrictions. In that situation, the SHACL should be generated from those 
more specific ontologies, not the generic, high level ones. There’s a similar 
issue with range-less properties, which OWL also allows.

Cheers,
David

> 
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
>   > On Behalf Of dprice
> Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 15:11
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On 1 Nov 2018, at 13:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
>  
> Ok, thx
>  
> I think I have to reformulate my issue then.
>  
> Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment?
> Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape.
>  
> Just tested this in Composer 6.0.0 by making an OWL object and OWL datatype 
> property with no domains and no OWL classes in the graph. I don’t see 
> anything referencing the two properties after running inferences.
>  
>  
> Ie when I have no class restrictions but only property restrictions like 
> domain and range.
> Are these now generated by the shacl-convertor?
>  
> Example
>  
> Generated:
>  
>   sh:property [
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:path ex2:name ;
>   sh:datatype xsd:string ;
>   sh:maxCount 1 ;
>   sh:minCount 1 ;
> ] ;
>  
> For ex2:Dog only.
>  
> But is there also a global:
>  
>   Ex2:NameShape
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:tagetsSubjectsOf ex2:name ;
>   sh:datatype xsd:string ;
> ] ;
>  
> Generated?
> That can be used validating values for names for all classes…
>  
> If yes, where could I find it (do not see it as instance of PropertyShape
> If no, is that something to do manually? Could it be in the converter in 
> principle?
>  
> You can make additional rules if you want, to generate anything you want. You 
> can also modify owl2shacl yourself if you want to include your new rules, to 
> delete existing rules, etc.
>  
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
>   > On Behalf Of 

RE: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx



Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471F9.8C318D00]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 15:11
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question




On 1 Nov 2018, at 13:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


Ok, thx

I think I have to reformulate my issue then.

Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment?
Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape.

Just tested this in Composer 6.0.0 by making an OWL object and OWL datatype 
property with no domains and no OWL classes in the graph. I don’t see anything 
referencing the two properties after running inferences.


Ie when I have no class restrictions but only property restrictions like domain 
and range.
Are these now generated by the shacl-convertor?

Example

Generated:

  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex2:name ;
  sh:datatype xsd:string ;
  sh:maxCount 1 ;
  sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;

For ex2:Dog only.

But is there also a global:

  Ex2:NameShape
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:tagetsSubjectsOf ex2:name ;
  sh:datatype xsd:string ;
] ;

Generated?
That can be used validating values for names for all classes…

If yes, where could I find it (do not see it as instance of PropertyShape
If no, is that something to do manually? Could it be in the converter in 
principle?

You can make additional rules if you want, to generate anything you want. You 
can also modify owl2shacl yourself if you want to include your new rules, to 
delete existing rules, etc.

Cheers,
David











Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 14:33
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question





On 1 Nov 2018, at 12:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

I saw:

owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype
  rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ;
  rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create 
sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a 
restriction)." ;


That means if sh:class or sh:datatype are already set in the property shape, 
don’t duplicate the statement. That’s what this does:

FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?propertyShape sh:class|sh:datatype ?any } .






this triggers some questions for me:

suppose the property is restricted for some specific class…shouldn’t it then be 
still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance 
verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not 
restricted)?

And

How does this relate to a domain  spec?

The rule is against NodeShape, no matter how the NodeShape got there so not 
really related to the logic wrt rdfs:domain.



I thought that in case of a domain spec nodeshape info is generated too (like 
the more general hasPart examples earlier?). Are they then generated or not 
(could not find them so quickly after generation). An if that is the case, 
shouldn’t it say “(from a restriction or domain)” iso of just “(from a 
restriction)”?

The “from a restriction” is not actually involved in the rule logic. It’s just 
a 

Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

[dprice]

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 13:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Ok, thx
>  
> I think I have to reformulate my issue then.
>  
> Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment?
> Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape.

Just tested this in Composer 6.0.0 by making an OWL object and OWL datatype 
property with no domains and no OWL classes in the graph. I don’t see anything 
referencing the two properties after running inferences.

>  
> Ie when I have no class restrictions but only property restrictions like 
> domain and range.
> Are these now generated by the shacl-convertor?
>  
> Example
>  
> Generated:
>  
>   sh:property [
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:path ex2:name ;
>   sh:datatype xsd:string ;
>   sh:maxCount 1 ;
>   sh:minCount 1 ;
> ] ;
>  
> For ex2:Dog only.
>  
> But is there also a global:
>  
>   Ex2:NameShape
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:tagetsSubjectsOf ex2:name ;
>   sh:datatype xsd:string ;
> ] ;
>  
> Generated?
> That can be used validating values for names for all classes…
>  
> If yes, where could I find it (do not see it as instance of PropertyShape
> If no, is that something to do manually? Could it be in the converter in 
> principle?

You can make additional rules if you want, to generate anything you want. You 
can also modify owl2shacl yourself if you want to include your new rules, to 
delete existing rules, etc.

Cheers,
David

>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
>   > On Behalf Of dprice
> Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 14:33
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On 1 Nov 2018, at 12:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
> I saw:
>  
> owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype
>   rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ;
>   rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create 
> sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a 
> restriction)." ;
>  
>  
> That means if sh:class or sh:datatype are already set in the property shape, 
> don’t duplicate the statement. That’s what this does:
>  
> FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?propertyShape sh:class|sh:datatype ?any } .
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> this triggers some questions for me:
>  
> suppose the property is restricted for some specific class…shouldn’t it then 
> be still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance 
> verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not 
> restricted)?
>  
> And
>  
> How does this relate to a domain  spec? 
>  
> The rule is against NodeShape, no matter how the NodeShape got there so not 
> really related to the logic wrt rdfs:domain.
> 
> 
> I thought that in case of a domain spec nodeshape info is generated too (like 
> the more general hasPart examples earlier?). Are they then generated or not 
> (could not find them so quickly after generation). An if that is the case, 
> shouldn’t it say “(from a restriction or domain)” iso of just “(from a 
> restriction)”?
>  
> The “from a restriction” is not actually involved in the rule logic. It’s 
> just a suggestion to the reader about how there might already be a 
> sh:class/sh:datatype for the property shape already related to the NodeShape 
> in question. That said, I don’t see any rule generating sh:class from an 
> rdfs:domain so the comment is likely accurate.
>  
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
>  
> thx
>  
> ps guess it has to do with
>  
> unless it already exists (from a restriction)."
>  
> Meaning in a separate propertyshape…not within a nodeshape (anonymous)
>  
> In hat case I have another question: generating shacl with explicit property 
> shapes (option) seems to give more functionality that only in context class, 
> right? (also giving validation options for classes not restricting)
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M 

RE: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Ok, thx

I think I have to reformulate my issue then.

Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment?
Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape.

Ie when I have no class restrictions but only property restrictions like domain 
and range.
Are these now generated by the shacl-convertor?

Example

Generated:

  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex2:name ;
  sh:datatype xsd:string ;
  sh:maxCount 1 ;
  sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;

For ex2:Dog only.

But is there also a global:

  Ex2:NameShape
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:tagetsSubjectsOf ex2:name ;
  sh:datatype xsd:string ;
] ;

Generated?
That can be used validating values for names for all classes…

If yes, where could I find it (do not see it as instance of PropertyShape
If no, is that something to do manually? Could it be in the converter in 
principle?









Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471F2.D6D73780]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 14:33
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question




On 1 Nov 2018, at 12:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

I saw:

owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype
  rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ;
  rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create 
sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a 
restriction)." ;


That means if sh:class or sh:datatype are already set in the property shape, 
don’t duplicate the statement. That’s what this does:

FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?propertyShape sh:class|sh:datatype ?any } .





this triggers some questions for me:

suppose the property is restricted for some specific class…shouldn’t it then be 
still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance 
verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not 
restricted)?

And

How does this relate to a domain  spec?

The rule is against NodeShape, no matter how the NodeShape got there so not 
really related to the logic wrt rdfs:domain.


I thought that in case of a domain spec nodeshape info is generated too (like 
the more general hasPart examples earlier?). Are they then generated or not 
(could not find them so quickly after generation). An if that is the case, 
shouldn’t it say “(from a restriction or domain)” iso of just “(from a 
restriction)”?

The “from a restriction” is not actually involved in the rule logic. It’s just 
a suggestion to the reader about how there might already be a 
sh:class/sh:datatype for the property shape already related to the NodeShape in 
question. That said, I don’t see any rule generating sh:class from an 
rdfs:domain so the comment is likely accurate.

Cheers,
David



thx

ps guess it has to do with

unless it already exists (from a restriction)."

Meaning in a separate propertyshape…not within a nodeshape (anonymous)

In hat case I have another question: generating shacl with explicit property 
shapes (option) seems to give more functionality that only in context class, 
right? (also giving validation options for classes not restricting)




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.










--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question

[dprice]

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 12:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> I saw:
>  
> owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype
>   rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ;
>   rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create 
> sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a 
> restriction)." ;
>  

That means if sh:class or sh:datatype are already set in the property shape, 
don’t duplicate the statement. That’s what this does:

FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?propertyShape sh:class|sh:datatype ?any } .



>  
> this triggers some questions for me:
>  
> suppose the property is restricted for some specific class…shouldn’t it then 
> be still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance 
> verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not 
> restricted)?
>  
> And
>  
> How does this relate to a domain  spec?

The rule is against NodeShape, no matter how the NodeShape got there so not 
really related to the logic wrt rdfs:domain.

> I thought that in case of a domain spec nodeshape info is generated too (like 
> the more general hasPart examples earlier?). Are they then generated or not 
> (could not find them so quickly after generation). An if that is the case, 
> shouldn’t it say “(from a restriction or domain)” iso of just “(from a 
> restriction)”?

The “from a restriction” is not actually involved in the rule logic. It’s just 
a suggestion to the reader about how there might already be a 
sh:class/sh:datatype for the property shape already related to the NodeShape in 
question. That said, I don’t see any rule generating sh:class from an 
rdfs:domain so the comment is likely accurate.

Cheers,
David

>  
> thx
>  
> ps guess it has to do with
>  
> unless it already exists (from a restriction)."
>  
> Meaning in a separate propertyshape…not within a nodeshape (anonymous)
>  
> In hat case I have another question: generating shacl with explicit property 
> shapes (option) seems to give more functionality that only in context class, 
> right? (also giving validation options for classes not restricting)
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308
US +1 (336) 283-0808‬

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [topbraid-users] class generated for datatype?

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Ok so ucum is a bit special..being defined as both datatype and class…which the 
latter takes precedence in shacl generation….

I will investigate with the author whether the annottaion “# This line is 
useless”, means it be better deleted, not causing issues like this……




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471EE.40C73820]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of dprice
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 14:16
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] class generated for datatype?




On 1 Nov 2018, at 10:57, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


Price is defined as:

ex2:price
  rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ;
  rdfs:domain ex2:Dog ;
  rdfs:range cdt:ucum ;
.

Generated by convertor:

  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex2:price ;
  sh:class cdt:ucum ;
  sh:maxCount 1 ;
] .

Why was a sh:class generated and not a sh:datatype? Any idea?

cdt:ucum is a bit special maybe:

:ucum  a  lindt:Datatype , rdfs:Datatype ;
rdfs:subClassOf  rdfs:Literal;  # This line is useless

That line means the two items are rdfs classes, from the rdfs spec:

3.4 rdfs:subClassOf

The property rdfs:subClassOf is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to 
state that all the instances of one class are instances of another.

A triple of the form:

C1 rdfs:subClassOf C2
states that C1 is an instance of rdfs:Class, C2 is an instance of rdfs:Class 
and C1 is a subclass of C2. The rdfs:subClassOf property is transitive.

Cheers,
David


….

Ie not only an rdfs:datatype


Change manually?

Thx michel








Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.










--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308
US +1 (336) 283-0808

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [topbraid-users] class generated for datatype?

[dprice]

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 10:57, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Price is defined as:
>  
> ex2:price
>   rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ;
>   rdfs:domain ex2:Dog ;
>   rdfs:range cdt:ucum ;
> .
>  
> Generated by convertor:
>  
>   sh:property [
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:path ex2:price ;
>   sh:class cdt:ucum ;
>   sh:maxCount 1 ;
> ] .
>  
> Why was a sh:class generated and not a sh:datatype? Any idea?
>  
> cdt:ucum is a bit special maybe:
>  
> :ucum  a  lindt:Datatype , rdfs:Datatype ;
> rdfs:subClassOf  rdfs:Literal;  # This line is useless

That line means the two items are rdfs classes, from the rdfs spec:

3.4 rdfs:subClassOf

The property rdfs:subClassOf is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to 
state that all the instances of one class are instances of another.

A triple of the form:

C1 rdfs:subClassOf C2
states that C1 is an instance of rdfs:Class, C2 is an instance of rdfs:Class 
and C1 is a subclass of C2. The rdfs:subClassOf property is transitive.

Cheers,
David

> ….
>  
> Ie not only an rdfs:datatype
>  
>  
> Change manually?
>  
> Thx michel
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308
US +1 (336) 283-0808‬

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[topbraid-users] general shacl question

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

I saw:

owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype
  rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ;
  rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create 
sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a 
restriction)." ;


this triggers some questions for me:

suppose the property is restricted for some specific class...shouldn't it then 
be still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance 
verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not 
restricted)?

And

How does this relate to a domain  spec? I thought that in case of a domain spec 
nodeshape info is generated too (like the more general hasPart examples 
earlier?). Are they then generated or not (could not find them so quickly after 
generation). An if that is the case, shouldn't it say "(from a restriction or 
domain)" iso of just "(from a restriction)"?

thx

ps guess it has to do with

unless it already exists (from a restriction)."

Meaning in a separate propertyshape...not within a nodeshape (anonymous)

In hat case I have another question: generating shacl with explicit property 
shapes (option) seems to give more functionality that only in context class, 
right? (also giving validation options for classes not restricting)




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471E3.2294F7D0]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[topbraid-users] class generated for datatype?

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Price is defined as:

ex2:price
  rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ;
  rdfs:domain ex2:Dog ;
  rdfs:range cdt:ucum ;
.

Generated by convertor:

  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex2:price ;
  sh:class cdt:ucum ;
  sh:maxCount 1 ;
] .

Why was a sh:class generated and not a sh:datatype? Any idea?

cdt:ucum is a bit special maybe:

:ucum  a  lindt:Datatype , rdfs:Datatype ;
rdfs:subClassOf  rdfs:Literal;  # This line is useless


Ie not only an rdfs:datatype


Change manually?

Thx michel








Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471DA.0026A990]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [topbraid-users] oneOf in shacl

[Irene Polikoff]

If you  say

> ex2:Category
>   rdf:type owl:Class ;
>   rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>   sh:in (
>   ex2:Pub
>   ex2:Adult
>   ex2:Senior


Then, if a triple such as ex2:Teen a ex2:Category is added, there will a 
violation.

So, if you want to make sure that no one would be able to add more members to 
the ex2:Category class without triggering an issue, then yes, do use sh:in.


> On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:53 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Irene
>  
> Thx for your extensive feedback, much appreciated.
>  
> The situation I now have is the following:
>  
> I DO have both in:
>  
> ex2:Category
>   rdf:type owl:Class ;
>   rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>   owl:oneOf (
>   ex2:Pub
>   ex2:Adult
>   ex2:Senior
> ) ;
>  
>   ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Senior ex2:Category.
>  
> And my idea was: I add the oneof to the category class to indicate a 
> closed/fixed list (assume for the moment the example was on dogs where the 
> three allowed items are really all, no such thing as teen-dog ie. ).
>  
> I understand the owl-owa level reasoning issues. I am most interested in the 
> cwa-shacl interpretation.
>  
> Generatings shacl for above gives me:
>  
> ex2:Dog
>   rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>   sh:property [
>   rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:path ex2:category ;
>   sh:class ex2:Category ;
>   sh:maxCount 1 ;
>   sh:minCount 1 ;
> ] ;
>  
> For Category I see however no shacl generated. So if I understand you right 
> there is no need too for data verification.
>  
> So…making a diff. for closed and open/extendable lists of allowed enumeration 
> items seems to have no effect on my actual shacl-cwa validation right?
>  
> Its just having a function on spec level I guess: with oneOf > closed 
> list….no oneOf of…open list. Or can I better leave the one of out here too? 
> (again the simpler/less the better…).
>  
> Thx again, Michel
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl 
> Location 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no 
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it 
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the 
> electronic transmission of messages.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
>   > On Behalf Of Irene Polikoff
> Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 04:00
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] oneOf in shacl
>  
> Holger is correct. But additionally, this example calls for some reflection 
> on the goal of this modeling pattern - having owl:oneOf in the first place.
>  
> OWL is open world. This means that if you say the following:
>  
> ex2:Category
>   rdf:type owl:Class ;
>   rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing.
>   ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Senior ex2:Category.
>  
> And, for example,
>  
> ex2:hasCategory rdfs:range ex2:Category.
>  
> And then
>  
> ex2:Asset1 ex2:hasCategory ex:Teen
>  
> There will be no inconsistency detected.
>  
> ex2:Teen will be inferred to be a ex2:Category, if you use an inference 
> engine.
>  
> Even if you use owl:oneOf as shown in your example below, there still would 
> still be no inconsistency since under the OWA, ex2:Teen could be the same as 
> either ex2:Pub,  ex2:Adult and  ex2:Senior. 
>  
> One possible way to get some checking/enforcing out of owl:oneOf would be if 
> your data always included owl:differentFrom assertions:
>  
> ex2:Teen owl:differentFrom ex2:Pub;
> owl:differentFrom ex2:Adult;
> owl:differentFrom ex2:Senior.
>  
> Such information, however, is rarely part of the data and you would need a DL 
> reasoner to detect this violation if data was present.
>  
> Or, another way to detect inconsistency would be if you had something like:
>  
> ex2:Teen a ex2:NotACategory.
> ex2:NotACategory.owl:disjointWith ex2:Category.
>  
> But in this case inconsistency would be detected even if you did not use 
> owl:oneOf since the inference would be that ex2:Teen is both a category and 
> not a category and these classes are disjoint. So, oneOf does not buy you 
> anything in this case.
>  
>  
> With SHACL, you do not need to say sh:in on the Shape Node level. You can 
> simply have:
>  
>   ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
>   ex2:Senior 

RE: [topbraid-users] oneOf in shacl

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Hi Irene

Thx for your extensive feedback, much appreciated.

The situation I now have is the following:

I DO have both in:

ex2:Category
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
  owl:oneOf (
  ex2:Pub
  ex2:Adult
  ex2:Senior
) ;

  ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
  ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
  ex2:Senior ex2:Category.

And my idea was: I add the oneof to the category class to indicate a 
closed/fixed list (assume for the moment the example was on dogs where the 
three allowed items are really all, no such thing as teen-dog ie. ).

I understand the owl-owa level reasoning issues. I am most interested in the 
cwa-shacl interpretation.

Generatings shacl for above gives me:

ex2:Dog
  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex2:category ;
  sh:class ex2:Category ;
  sh:maxCount 1 ;
  sh:minCount 1 ;
] ;

For Category I see however no shacl generated. So if I understand you right 
there is no need too for data verification.

So…making a diff. for closed and open/extendable lists of allowed enumeration 
items seems to have no effect on my actual shacl-cwa validation right?

Its just having a function on spec level I guess: with oneOf > closed list….no 
oneOf of…open list. Or can I better leave the one of out here too? (again the 
simpler/less the better…).

Thx again, Michel




Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471C0.60E22580]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Irene Polikoff
Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 04:00
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] oneOf in shacl

Holger is correct. But additionally, this example calls for some reflection on 
the goal of this modeling pattern - having owl:oneOf in the first place.

OWL is open world. This means that if you say the following:

ex2:Category
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
  rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing.
  ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
  ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
  ex2:Senior ex2:Category.

And, for example,

ex2:hasCategory rdfs:range ex2:Category.

And then

ex2:Asset1 ex2:hasCategory ex:Teen

There will be no inconsistency detected.

ex2:Teen will be inferred to be a ex2:Category, if you use an inference engine.

Even if you use owl:oneOf as shown in your example below, there still would 
still be no inconsistency since under the OWA, ex2:Teen could be the same as 
either ex2:Pub,  ex2:Adult and  ex2:Senior.

One possible way to get some checking/enforcing out of owl:oneOf would be if 
your data always included owl:differentFrom assertions:

ex2:Teen owl:differentFrom ex2:Pub;
owl:differentFrom ex2:Adult;
owl:differentFrom ex2:Senior.

Such information, however, is rarely part of the data and you would need a DL 
reasoner to detect this violation if data was present.

Or, another way to detect inconsistency would be if you had something like:

ex2:Teen a ex2:NotACategory.
ex2:NotACategory.owl:disjointWith ex2:Category.

But in this case inconsistency would be detected even if you did not use 
owl:oneOf since the inference would be that ex2:Teen is both a category and not 
a category and these classes are disjoint. So, oneOf does not buy you anything 
in this case.


With SHACL, you do not need to say sh:in on the Shape Node level. You can 
simply have:

  ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
  ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
  ex2:Senior ex2:Category.

The range statement would be translated into the property shape with sh:class 
ex2:Category constraint.

And a statement {ex2:Asset1 ex2:hasCategory ex:Teen} will be reported as an 
issue.

With this, my personal preference would be to translate

ex2:Category
  owl:oneOf (
  ex2:Pub
  ex2:Adult
  ex2:Senior
) ;

Into

  ex2:Pub a ex2:Category.
  ex2:Adult ex2:Category.
  ex2:Senior ex2:Category.

Having said this, such decisions depend on the goals and intensions of the 
modeler.


On Oct 31, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Holger Knublauch 
mailto:hol...@topquadrant.com>> wrote:

Yes, sh:in at a node shape states that all target nodes (here: the instances of 
ex2:Category) must be one of the enumerated values.

Holger




On 1/11/2018 2:29 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users wrote:


ex2:Category
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  rdf:type 

RE: [topbraid-users] shacl generation

['Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users]

Hi Holger

Yes, of course..its like our owl-level agreement to interpret mincard=0 to 
indicate relevance…
I misinterpreted the more special constraint involving qualification that does 
of course not cover this more generic case…

So the only issue left: they seem to be generated multiple times now; so I 
guess I can delete all clones and keep one, right?

Gr Michel

Ps
Thx for your very clear reply on the issue of nodeKind

From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Holger Knublauch
Sent: woensdag 31 oktober 2018 23:22
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] shacl generation


The apparently "empty" property shapes that just specify a sh:path DO have a 
role and DO carry some information. It is similar to rdfs:domain statements, in 
that a tool can see which properties are "relevant" and likely used for a given 
class/shape.

But right, if you don't think you want this info, there is no harm in deleting 
it.

Holger



On 1/11/2018 12:20 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users wrote:
When generating shacl I get:


ex2:Head
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
] ;
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
] ;
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
  sh:qualifiedMaxCount 1 ;
  sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
  sh:qualifiedValueShape [
  sh:class ex2:Ears ;
] ;
] ;
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
  sh:qualifiedMaxCount 1 ;
  sh:qualifiedMinCount 1 ;
  sh:qualifiedValueShape [
  sh:class ex2:Eyes ;
] ;
] ;
Isn’t that too much? (can I just delete?:
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
] ;
  sh:property [
  rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path dct:hasPart ;
] ;

)

Thx Michel







Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image001.gif@01D471BC.910D1110]

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability 
for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for 
damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic 
transmission of messages.









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [topbraid-users] Re: Issue when using parameters on SWP service

[Holger Knublauch]

Hi William,

sorry the error message appears mis-formatted, or uses a different query 
than what you had shown earlier. Does it really use ?projectGraph as 
argument for SERVICE? And the error lacks crucial detail such as "Caused 
by...". Maybe you can send me the full error log (in a private email if 
you prefer)?


Holger


On 1/11/2018 9:52 AM, William Ramos wrote:

Additional error log:

An internal error has been reported by SWP engine of TopBraid Live
Failed to construct SWP argument http://uispin.org/ui#resultSet at
template in query SELECT ?projectGraph ?name ?description
?identifier ?statusLabel ?version WHERE { SERVICE { (
?projectGraph ) GRAPH ?projectGraph { ?projectGraph a ; ?name
OPTIONAL { ?projectGraph ?statusVar } OPTIONAL { GRAPH {
?statusVar ?statusLabel } } } } FILTER ( ?statusLabel = ?status ) }


 java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Failed to construct SWP argument 
http://uispin.org/ui#resultSet at template

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid 
Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.