Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Hi David Miltos cracked my problem finally based on your example. 1. The shacl issue1 wrt domain is still there but lets forget...lets assume domain should be always ontology. 2. Issue2 was never in the sh:declare 3. It was in the prefixes that should have target owl ontology hence base uri

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Hi David This did not work for me earlier starting the whole issue but i will retry again tomorrow. The spec I know and copied earlier. The issue is that in that paragraph ...the link you copy below...it says "recommended" and "optional" where looking at the rdfs def of sh:declare it is much

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Hi Michel, I did the following from your example but following the W3C spec and it works fine in Composer: sh:declare [ sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ; sh:prefix "rdf" ; ] ; sh:declare [

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Wrt your ps I think it is quite obvious that I mention this issue 1 here since it is so much related to the actual tbc issue being issue 2. Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price : Hi Michel, I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading the W3C spec. I see

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Dear David Please reread our issues. This is exactly the point in our two subissues. Issue1...recommended does not mean obliged. It also says optional owl:Ontology in the spec. But indeed metalanguage is much stronger ... domain is owl:Ontology... Issue 2 The file attached delivers rule results

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Hi Michel, I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading the W3C spec. I see this in your file: rdf: sh:declare [ sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ; sh:prefix "rdf" ; ] ; . when the spec clearly says “The

[topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare. Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue) Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl): sh:declare a rdf:Property ; rdfs:label "declare"@en ;

Re: [topbraid-users] Deleting backups in EDG

Hi. Thanks for the report. We are looking into this for EDG 7.1. In the meantime, you can use S3 lifecycle rules to set retention. On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:29 PM Marcus Jowsey < marcus.jow...@surroundaustralia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > In EDG 7.x, when I backup to S3 bucket it works fine, same for