subject:"Re\: \[topbraid\-users\] owl\:oneOf to shacl \?"

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Agreed, although “logically better” would in my view always prevail over
“performance better”.
Of course logic can be compromised for performance reasons but then that should
be made as explicit as possible.
(beyond that I think David also argued that performance was here not such a big
issue in EDG)

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D618B8.BB4EC8C0]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Namens
Irene Polikoff
Verzonden: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 3:06 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

You asked “what is better”. To me, answering this question requires considering
the context of use from which come criteria for what it means to be better.

If you are making some statements that will simply be read by other people,
then the most important criteria for ‘better’ is how easily other people can
understand these statements.

If you are making statements that are intended to be machine processable, then
I do not see how “better” can’t be decided on without considering performance
implications.

On Apr 22, 2020, at 3:23 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

- wrt range in case of also domain: I did not argue based on performance just
on logic:

--
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<mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/83B7FCFA-A606-4989-BF4B-531E9A19D061%40topquadrant.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/83B7FCFA-A606-4989-BF4B-531E9A19D061%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/02d38e399b9148098be718e2c08d6f52%40tno.nl.

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread Irene Polikoff

You asked “what is better”. To me, answering this question requires considering 
the context of use from which come criteria for what it means to be better.

If you are making some statements that will simply be read by other people, 
then the most important criteria for ‘better’ is how easily other people can 
understand these statements.

If you are making statements that are intended to be machine processable, then 
I do not see how “better” can’t be decided on without considering performance 
implications.

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 3:23 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> - wrt range in case of also domain: I did not argue based on performance just 
> on logic:

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/83B7FCFA-A606-4989-BF4B-531E9A19D061%40topquadrant.com.

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Ahh ok, now I see the equivalence

So I guess your alternative is preferred (shorter)

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D618A9.95632250]<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Namens
Irene Polikoff
Verzonden: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:11 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

I made a typo. It should be

ex:accuracyShape
a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;

Node shapes don’t have a path. Constraints specified for a NodeShape apply
directly to the targets as opposed to other nodes that are reached by following
a path.
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 22, 2020, at 3:23 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
Thx Irene

- so red should be in, clear!
- leaving out the path was new to me. So this is the default semantics when no
(other) path is specified? Guess there is some rule “if no path then use
property indicated by targetSubjectsOf”? Is that somewhere specified in the
shacl spec?
- wrt range in case of also domain: I did not argue based on performance just
on logic: if it is always separate also in case of domain there would be one
simple rule and not a rule like:
“if there is no domain map range to propertyshape with allSubjectsFRom, if
there is a domain (or domains) map range to propertyshape used by node shape”.
- an as said: the dealing with the range would be independent of whether there
is a domain or not.
- anyway, apart from this logic, I see the practical interpretation that you
are in general especially interested in the range IN CASE of the domain is
relevant so I will also stick to the second more complex mapping. Guess this is
also more in line with the CWA-situation you map towards.

Best regards Michel

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>>
Namens Irene Polikoff
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:46 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

See below

On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:12 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Hi David

I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.

But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a property
being functional etc.

In https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html there is the example for functional.

I used this approach for the range:

ex:accuracy
a rdf:Property ;
.
ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:path ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

There are now 2 issues.

Issue 1:
- is the red needed or not?

If you plan on using a property shape stand alone, outside of a node shape, it
needs a target. Otherwise, it gets a target from the node shape.

ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

Is the same as

ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:path ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

Issue 2:
- even if there is a domain so this constraint can be modelled in the context
of a nodeshape, wouldn’t it be better to do it as above (since domain and range
are comple

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread Irene Polikoff

I made a typo. It should be

> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:NodeShape ;
>   sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;

Node shapes don’t have a path. Constraints specified for a NodeShape apply 
directly to the targets as opposed to other nodes that are reached by following 
a path.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 3:23 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thx Irene
>  
> - so red should be in, clear!
> - leaving out the path was new to me. So this is the default semantics when 
> no (other) path is specified? Guess there is some rule “if no path then use 
> property indicated by targetSubjectsOf”? Is that somewhere specified in the 
> shacl spec?
> - wrt range in case of also domain: I did not argue based on performance just 
> on logic: if it is always separate also in case of domain there would be one 
> simple rule and not a rule like:
> “if there is no domain map range to propertyshape with allSubjectsFRom, if 
> there is a domain (or domains) map range to propertyshape used by node shape”.
> - an as said: the dealing with the range would be independent of whether 
> there is a domain or not.
> - anyway, apart from this logic, I see the practical interpretation that you 
> are in general especially interested in the range IN CASE of the domain is 
> relevant so I will also stick to the second more complex mapping. Guess this 
> is also more in line with the CWA-situation you map towards.
>  
> Best regards 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  Namens 
> Irene Polikoff
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:46 PM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
> See below
> 
> 
> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:12 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
>  
> Hi David
>  
> I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.
>  
> But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a 
> property being functional etc.
>  
> In  https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html there is the example for 
> functional.
>  
> I used this approach for the range:
>  
> ex:accuracy
>   a rdf:Property ;
> .
> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:path ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .
>  
> There are now 2 issues.
>  
> Issue 1:
> - is the red needed or not?
>  
> If you plan on using a property shape stand alone, outside of a node shape, 
> it needs a target. Otherwise, it gets a target from the node shape.
>  
> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .
>  
> Is the same as
>  
> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:path ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .
>  
> 
> 
>  
> Issue 2:
> - even if there is a domain so this constraint can be modelled in the context 
> of a nodeshape, wouldn’t it be better to do it as above (since domain and 
> range are completely independent, so the range constraint also holds for 
> instances of the property not of type domain)
>  
>  
> Better for what? For tools? I would not say so. 
>  
> With this approach, there is more figuring out to do in order to identify the 
> applicability of a property and the allowed values when you are dealing with 
> a resource. If one needs to have highly responsive user interface, this will 
> slow it down considerably and add complexity. Even just from the validation 
> perspective and assuming you do not need real time validation, checking for 
> all possible options and running them will take more time. If performance is 
> never an issue, then, pile on whatever you want.
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl
> Location
> 
>  
> 
> This message may contain inf

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Thx David

- path, that would make sense...but I have mixed message now...
- performance, again mixed messages, anyway I like to focus on the logic-
considerations
- universal: with universal I mean restrictions that are on the property not on
the class. So domain and range I see as universal restrictions. When going to
shacl the domain can be trivially become a property shape within a node shape
based on “relevance”. But for the range it is more complex: the range holds
independent of the domain so assuming there is no domain the best thing you can
do is an explicit propertyshape (with targetSubjectsOf and path). In case there
IS a domain you can assume the range constraint is most relevant there
(although formally not ONLY there) and make the range sh:class into an implicit
or explicit property shape. Does this makes sense?

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D618A2.093D01D0]<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Namens
dprice
Verzonden: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:19 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

On 22 Apr 2020, at 08:23, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Thx Irene

- so red should be in, clear!

Only if not using sh:property .

- leaving out the path was new to me.

That’s an error. PS all have sh:path by-definition - “A property shape is a
shape in the shapes graph that is the subject of a triple that has sh:path as
its predicate.” from the spec.

So this is the default semantics when no (other) path is specified? Guess there
is some rule “if no path then use property indicated by targetSubjectsOf”? Is
that somewhere specified in the shacl spec?
- wrt range in case of also domain: I did not argue based on performance just
on logic: if it is always separate also in case of domain there would be one
simple rule and not a rule like:
“if there is no domain map range to propertyshape with allSubjectsFRom, if
there is a domain (or domains) map range to propertyshape used by node shape”.
- an as said: the dealing with the range would be independent of whether there
is a domain or not.
- anyway, apart from this logic, I see the practical interpretation that you
are in general especially interested in the range IN CASE of the domain is
relevant so I will also stick to the second more complex mapping. Guess this is
also more in line with the CWA-situation you map towards.

A few further comments below responding to your earlier concerns. I’m not sure
all “range” possibilities have been thought thru in some of this discussion.

Best regards Michel

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

<http://www.tno.nl/>

See below

On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:12 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Hi David

I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.

But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a property
being functional etc.

range is not “universal”. If a property has rdfs:range xsd:integer for a
specific class/NS, then in any of it’

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-22 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Thx Irene

Best regards Michel

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D61887.A19B4F10]<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Namens
Irene Polikoff
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:46 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

See below

On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:12 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Hi David

I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.

But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a property
being functional etc.

In https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html there is the example for functional.

I used this approach for the range:

ex:accuracy
a rdf:Property ;
.
ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:path ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

There are now 2 issues.

Issue 1:
- is the red needed or not?

If you plan on using a property shape stand alone, outside of a node shape, it
needs a target. Otherwise, it gets a target from the node shape.

ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

Is the same as

ex:accuracyShape
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
sh:path ex:accuracy ;
sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

Issue 2:
- even if there is a domain so this constraint can be modelled in the context
of a nodeshape, wouldn’t it be better to do it as above (since domain and range
are completely independent, so the range constraint also holds for instances of
the property not of type domain)

Better for what? For tools? I would not say so.

With this approach, there is more figuring out to do in order to identify the
applicability of a property and the allowed values when you are dealing with a
resource. If one needs to have highly responsive user interface, this will slow
it down considerably and add complexity. Even just from the validation
perspective and assuming you do not need real time validation, checking for all
possible options and running them will take more time. If performance is never
an issue, then, pile on whatever you want.

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>>
Namens dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 4:28 PM
Aan:

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread Irene Polikoff

See below

> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:12 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi David
>  
> I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.
>  
> But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a 
> property being functional etc.
>  
> In  https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html 
> <https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html> there is the example for functional.
>  
> I used this approach for the range:
>  
> ex:accuracy
>   a rdf:Property ;
> .
> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:path ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .
>  
> There are now 2 issues.
>  
> Issue 1:
> - is the red needed or not?

If you plan on using a property shape stand alone, outside of a node shape, it 
needs a target. Otherwise, it gets a target from the node shape.

> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetObjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .


Is the same as

> ex:accuracyShape
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:path ex:accuracy ;
>   sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
> .


>  
> Issue 2:
> - even if there is a domain so this constraint can be modelled in the context 
> of a nodeshape, wouldn’t it be better to do it as above (since domain and 
> range are completely independent, so the range constraint also holds for 
> instances of the property not of type domain)


Better for what? For tools? I would not say so. 

With this approach, there is more figuring out to do in order to identify the 
applicability of a property and the allowed values when you are dealing with a 
resource. If one needs to have highly responsive user interface, this will slow 
it down considerably and add complexity. Even just from the validation 
perspective and assuming you do not need real time validation, checking for all 
possible options and running them will take more time. If performance is never 
an issue, then, pile on whatever you want.

>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Namens dprice
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 4:28 PM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:41, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
>  
> What I meant was: domain and range are independent so if I have only a range, 
> I HAVE to make it an explicit Propertyshape (with as I think: a 
> allSubjectsFrom...).
> But if I have a domain AND a range, I can do the range via 
> sh:property/sh:class/sh:datatype in the NodeShape (as we did now).
>  
>  
> My issue is: the range restriction does not only hold in the domain case: it 
> always holds..its independent of that domain.
>  
> I’m not sure why this is an issue. A named PS can use sh:class or sh:datatype 
> to specify the required “range" with no mention of “domain”. I’m not sure I 
> agree - see below.
> 
> 
> So...shouldnt a range always be modelled separately from the domain 
> nodeshape, in general as a property shape.
>  
> Not necessarily. Some PropertyShapes (i.e. properties) only make sense in the 
> context of a specific NodeShape (i.e. Class). The US has Social Security 
> Number with a required NNN-NN- pattern and only instances of class 
> USPerson (i.e. U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) 
> residents) can have that - class Dog cannot, so not necessary to model it 
> outside the context of Person. In fact, you might argue that making it a 
> separate named PS with just a sh:path and sh

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Hi David

I see the need for often context (domain)-sepcific constraints.

But my question is about universal constraints like an rdfs:range or a property 
being functional etc.

In  https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html there is the example for functional.

I used this approach for the range:

ex:accuracy
  a rdf:Property ;
.
ex:accuracyShape
  a sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:accuracy ;
  sh:path ex:accuracy ;
  sh:class smls:QuantityValue ;
.

There are now 2 issues.

Issue 1:
- is the red needed or not?

Issue 2:
- even if there is a domain so this constraint can be modelled in the context 
of a nodeshape, wouldn’t it be better to do it as above (since domain and range 
are completely independent, so the range constraint also holds for instances of 
the property not of type domain)







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


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



[cid:image001.gif@01D617FF.F91E7330]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  Namens 
dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 4:28 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?




On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:41, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


What I meant was: domain and range are independent so if I have only a range, I 
HAVE to make it an explicit Propertyshape (with as I think: a 
allSubjectsFrom...).
But if I have a domain AND a range, I can do the range via 
sh:property/sh:class/sh:datatype in the NodeShape (as we did now).


My issue is: the range restriction does not only hold in the domain case: it 
always holds..its independent of that domain.

I’m not sure why this is an issue. A named PS can use sh:class or sh:datatype 
to specify the required “range" with no mention of “domain”. I’m not sure I 
agree - see below.


So...shouldnt a range always be modelled separately from the domain nodeshape, 
in general as a property shape.

Not necessarily. Some PropertyShapes (i.e. properties) only make sense in the 
context of a specific NodeShape (i.e. Class). The US has Social Security Number 
with a required NNN-NN- pattern and only instances of class USPerson (i.e. 
U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents) can have 
that - class Dog cannot, so not necessary to model it outside the context of 
Person. In fact, you might argue that making it a separate named PS with just a 
sh:path and sh:datatype creates the potential for misuse by other modellers 
using your shapes, and therefore choose not to do so.


(subissue being then whether sh:allSubjectsOf is needed or not, see  reply Jan; 
I am still unsure there: you have to give a path and that path should start at 
some target or is there some kind of default in play here?)

In your simple case, all that's required in SHACL is that PS sh:path should be 
the IRI of the predicate (plus the sh:class or sh:datatype). You can then say 
more in the NodeShapes that control where the PS is used.

Cheers,
David







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



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
Namens dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:17 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Technically, x:Vehicle-loadLevel is independent which may not be exactly what 
you want. Since you had a domain on the property, you’

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread dprice



> On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:41, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> What I meant was: domain and range are independent so if I have only a range, 
> I HAVE to make it an explicit Propertyshape (with as I think: a 
> allSubjectsFrom...).
> But if I have a domain AND a range, I can do the range via 
> sh:property/sh:class/sh:datatype in the NodeShape (as we did now).
>  
>  
> My issue is: the range restriction does not only hold in the domain case: it 
> always holds..its independent of that domain.

I’m not sure why this is an issue. A named PS can use sh:class or sh:datatype 
to specify the required “range" with no mention of “domain”. I’m not sure I 
agree - see below.

> So...shouldnt a range always be modelled separately from the domain 
> nodeshape, in general as a property shape.

Not necessarily. Some PropertyShapes (i.e. properties) only make sense in the 
context of a specific NodeShape (i.e. Class). The US has Social Security Number 
with a required NNN-NN- pattern and only instances of class USPerson (i.e. 
U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents) can have 
that - class Dog cannot, so not necessary to model it outside the context of 
Person. In fact, you might argue that making it a separate named PS with just a 
sh:path and sh:datatype creates the potential for misuse by other modellers 
using your shapes, and therefore choose not to do so.

> (subissue being then whether sh:allSubjectsOf is needed or not, see  reply 
> Jan; I am still unsure there: you have to give a path and that path should 
> start at some target or is there some kind of default in play here?)

In your simple case, all that's required in SHACL is that PS sh:path should be 
the IRI of the predicate (plus the sh:class or sh:datatype). You can then say 
more in the NodeShapes that control where the PS is used.

Cheers,
David

>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Namens dprice
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:17 PM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
> Technically, x:Vehicle-loadLevel is independent which may not be exactly what 
> you want. Since you had a domain on the property, you’ve said it is not 
> independent of subject - so I used the PS name to make the intent clear. 
>  
> I personally prefer the sh:property style of modelling because I can look at 
> the NodeShape and it’s superclasses to find every property shape that comes 
> into play. That does mean when focusing on the PS I have to do a search to 
> “Find references” for the NS (but by using the PS naming convention of 
> Class-Property I don’t actually need to do that to know where the PS is used).
>  
> Cheers,
> David
>  
>  
> On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:04, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
>  
> Hmmm...I thought that you would use sh:targetSubjectsOf if you want to 
> constrain independent from the type of subject!
> (so just any subject having the property)
>  
> (In david example the target was ex:Vehicle, so he used the property shape in 
> the context of a sh:NodeShape)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
> not the address

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users


What I meant was: domain and range are independent so if I have only a range, I 
HAVE to make it an explicit Propertyshape (with as I think: a 
allSubjectsFrom...).
But if I have a domain AND a range, I can do the range via 
sh:property/sh:class/sh:datatype in the NodeShape (as we did now).


My issue is: the range restriction does not only hold in the domain case: it 
always holds..its independent of that domain.
So...shouldnt a range always be modelled separately from the domain nodeshape, 
in general as a property shape.
(subissue being then whether sh:allSubjectsOf is needed or not, see  reply Jan; 
I am still unsure there: you have to give a path and that path should start at 
some target or is there some kind of default in play here?)





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


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



[cid:image001.gif@01D617E2.862FDDE0]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  Namens 
dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:17 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Technically, x:Vehicle-loadLevel is independent which may not be exactly what 
you want. Since you had a domain on the property, you’ve said it is not 
independent of subject - so I used the PS name to make the intent clear.

I personally prefer the sh:property style of modelling because I can look at 
the NodeShape and it’s superclasses to find every property shape that comes 
into play. That does mean when focusing on the PS I have to do a search to 
“Find references” for the NS (but by using the PS naming convention of 
Class-Property I don’t actually need to do that to know where the PS is used).

Cheers,
David


On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:04, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


Hmmm...I thought that you would use sh:targetSubjectsOf if you want to 
constrain independent from the type of subject!
(so just any subject having the property)

(In david example the target was ex:Vehicle, so he used the property shape in 
the context of a sh:NodeShape)








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



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
Namens Jan Voskuil
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:58 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

The shape is a property shape. Wherever the property in the property path 
occurs (i.e. ex:loadLevel), the constraint will be checked/validated. So, no 
need to specify sh:targetSubjectsOf --- unless you want the constraint to hold 
only if a specific type of subject is present. -j

From: 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: 21 April 2020 12:45
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?


I’ll add the labels indeed!

Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?

No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?





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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



<http://www.tno.nl/>

This message may contain

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread dprice

Technically, x:Vehicle-loadLevel is independent which may not be exactly what 
you want. Since you had a domain on the property, you’ve said it is not 
independent of subject - so I used the PS name to make the intent clear. 

I personally prefer the sh:property style of modelling because I can look at 
the NodeShape and it’s superclasses to find every property shape that comes 
into play. That does mean when focusing on the PS I have to do a search to 
“Find references” for the NS (but by using the PS naming convention of 
Class-Property I don’t actually need to do that to know where the PS is used).

Cheers,
David


> On 21 Apr 2020, at 12:04, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Hmmm...I thought that you would use sh:targetSubjectsOf if you want to 
> constrain independent from the type of subject!
> (so just any subject having the property)
>  
> (In david example the target was ex:Vehicle, so he used the property shape in 
> the context of a sh:NodeShape)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Namens Jan Voskuil
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:58 PM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Onderwerp: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
> The shape is a property shape. Wherever the property in the property path 
> occurs (i.e. ex:loadLevel), the constraint will be checked/validated. So, no 
> need to specify sh:targetSubjectsOf --- unless you want the constraint to 
> hold only if a specific type of subject is present. -j
>  
> From: 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Sent: 21 April 2020 12:45
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
>  
> I’ll add the labels indeed!
>  
> Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?
>  
> No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Namens dprice
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
> Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
> model:
>  
> 1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in 
> a UI
>  
> ex:Heavy
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
> .
> ex:Light
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Light" ;
> .
> ex:Normal
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Normal" ;
> .
>  
> 2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
> instance with anything other th

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users


Hmmm...I thought that you would use sh:targetSubjectsOf if you want to 
constrain independent from the type of subject!
(so just any subject having the property)

(In david example the target was ex:Vehicle, so he used the property shape in 
the context of a sh:NodeShape)








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


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



[cid:image001.gif@01D617DD.68764140]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  Namens 
Jan Voskuil
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:58 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

The shape is a property shape. Wherever the property in the property path 
occurs (i.e. ex:loadLevel), the constraint will be checked/validated. So, no 
need to specify sh:targetSubjectsOf --- unless you want the constraint to hold 
only if a specific type of subject is present. -j

From: 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: 21 April 2020 12:45
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?


I’ll add the labels indeed!

Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?

No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?





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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



[cid:image001.gif@01D617DD.68764140]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
Namens dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
model:

1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in a 
UI

ex:Heavy
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
.
ex:Light
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Light" ;
.
ex:Normal
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Normal" ;
.

2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
instance with anything other than the 3 selections

ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
  a sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
  sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
  sh:in (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

Cheers,
David

On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

If I want to move:

ex:loadLevel
  a rdf:Property ;
  rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
  rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
  a rdfs:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
  owl:oneOf (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?

1.  in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in

2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel

For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there is 
no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.

Thx Michel

Ps
Related:
In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property 
shape (involving targetSubjectsOf) so also in case there is a domain 
clause...since domain and range are fully independent







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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Hi David,

Ahh, ok, great, exactly as I had it now (only with explicit nodeshape and 
anonymous sh:property):

ex:Vehicle
  a rdfs:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf smls:PhysicalObject ;
.
ex:VehicleShape
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:targetClass ex:Vehicle ;
  sh:property [
sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
sh:in (ex:Light ex:Normal ex:Heavy ) ;
] ;
.

So the only potential issue I saw with this approach:
Now this constraint is modelled only in the context of Vehicle, being the 
domain.
But actually the range always holds also in case the ex:loadLevel is a property 
of something not of type domain (here ex:Vehicle)(this is still possible 
since domain means “at least” and not “only” ...)

So I thought...maybe it would be more accurate to make it into a property shape 
for sh:allSubjectsOf this property

What do you think of this?

Thx again, Michel





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


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



[cid:image001.gif@01D617DC.961B8C00]<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com  Namens 
dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:49 PM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Oops - also had this:

ex:Vehicle
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:property ex:Vehicle-loadLevel ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
  a sh:NodeShape ;
.

Cheers,
David


On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:44, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


I’ll add the labels indeed!

Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?

No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?





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



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>



<http://www.tno.nl/>

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.









Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
Namens dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
model:

1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in a 
UI

ex:Heavy
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
.
ex:Light
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Light" ;
.
ex:Normal
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Normal" ;
.

2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
instance with anything other than the 3 selections

ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
  a sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
  sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
  sh:in (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

Cheers,
David



On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

If I want to move:

ex:loadLevel
  a rdf:Property ;
  rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
  rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
  a rdfs:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
  owl:oneOf (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?

1.  in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in

2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel

For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there is 
no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.

Thx Michel

Ps
Related:
In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property 
shape (involving targetSubj

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread Jan Voskuil

The shape is a property shape. Wherever the property in the property path 
occurs (i.e. ex:loadLevel), the constraint will be checked/validated. So, no 
need to specify sh:targetSubjectsOf --- unless you want the constraint to hold 
only if a specific type of subject is present. -j

From: 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 

Sent: 21 April 2020 12:45
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

I’ll add the labels indeed!

Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?

No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist
T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D617DC.72EA4CD0]<http://www.tno.nl/>
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.

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
Namens dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
model:

1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in a 
UI

ex:Heavy
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
.
ex:Light
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Light" ;
.
ex:Normal
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Normal" ;
.

2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
instance with anything other than the 3 selections

ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
  a sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
  sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
  sh:in (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

Cheers,
David

On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

If I want to move:

ex:loadLevel
  a rdf:Property ;
  rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
  rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
  a rdfs:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
  owl:oneOf (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?

1.  in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in

2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel

For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there is 
no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.

Thx Michel

Ps
Related:
In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property 
shape (involving targetSubjectsOf) so also in case there is a domain 
clause...since domain and range are fully independent

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

<http://www.tno.nl/>
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<mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/33cb2621c13641ffbf7e027bf9111354%40tno.nl<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/33cb2621c13641ffbf7e027bf9111354%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

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-

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread dprice

Oops - also had this:

ex:Vehicle
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:property ex:Vehicle-loadLevel ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
  a sh:NodeShape ;
.

Cheers,
David

> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:44, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> I’ll add the labels indeed!
>  
> Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?
>  
> No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> Namens dprice
> Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
> Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?
>  
> Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
> model:
>  
> 1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in 
> a UI
>  
> ex:Heavy
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
> .
> ex:Light
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Light" ;
> .
> ex:Normal
>   a ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   rdfs:label "Normal" ;
> .
>  
> 2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
> instance with anything other than the 3 selections
>  
> ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
>   a sh:PropertyShape ;
>   sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
>   sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
>   sh:in (
>   ex:Light
>   ex:Normal
>   ex:Heavy
> ) ;
> .
>  
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
> On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
> If I want to move:
>  
> ex:loadLevel
>   a rdf:Property ;
>   rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
>   rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
> .
>  
> ex:LoadLevelType
>   a rdfs:Class ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
>   owl:oneOf (
>   ex:Light
>   ex:Normal
>   ex:Heavy
> ) ;
> .
>  
> To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?
>  
> 1.  in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in
>  
> 2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel
>  
> For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there 
> is no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.
>  
> Thx Michel
>  
> Ps
> Related:
> In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property 
> shape (involving targetSubjectsOf) so also in case there is a domain 
> clause...since domain and range are fully independent
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
> Senior Data Scientist
> 
> 
> T +31888663107
> M +31630381220
> E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>
> Location 
> <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>
> 
>  
>  <http://www.tno.nl/>
> 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 
> <mailto:topbraid-user

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

I’ll add the labels indeed!

Wrt shacl: what is the target of this shape?

No need to add sh:targetSubjectsOf ex:loadLevel ?

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

[cid:image001.gif@01D617DA.A6D7ACB0]<http://www.tno.nl/>

Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Namens
dprice
Verzonden: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:56 AM
Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your
model:

1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in a
UI

ex:Heavy
a ex:LoadLevelType ;
rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
.
ex:Light
a ex:LoadLevelType ;
rdfs:label "Light" ;
.
ex:Normal
a ex:LoadLevelType ;
rdfs:label "Normal" ;
.

2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an
instance with anything other than the 3 selections

ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
sh:in (
ex:Light
ex:Normal
ex:Heavy
) ;
.

Cheers,
David

On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

If I want to move:

ex:loadLevel
a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
.

ex:LoadLevelType
a rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
owl:oneOf (
ex:Light
ex:Normal
ex:Heavy
) ;
.

To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?

1. in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in

2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel

For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there is
no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.

Thx Michel

Ps
Related:
In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property
shape (involving targetSubjectsOf) so also in case there is a domain
clause...since domain and range are fully independent

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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707>

<http://www.tno.nl/>

--
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<mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/33cb2621c13641ffbf7e027bf9111354%40tno.nl<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/33cb2621c13641ffbf7e027bf9111354%40tno.nl?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

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<mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/DD08E718-3A78-4210-B9B1-3C48353AC734%40topquadrant.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/DD08E718-3A78-4210-B9B1-3C48353AC734%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

--
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

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

2020-04-21 Thread dprice

Not sure about “best” but I did this and it works great and aligns with your 
model:

1) Added to ensure drop-down lists show the right instances for selection in a 
UI

ex:Heavy
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Heavy" ;
.
ex:Light
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Light" ;
.
ex:Normal
  a ex:LoadLevelType ;
  rdfs:label "Normal" ;
.

2) sh:in in the PropertyShape gives me a violation if I go in and make an 
instance with anything other than the 3 selections

ex:Vehicle-loadLevel
  a sh:PropertyShape ;
  sh:path ex:loadLevel ;
  sh:class ex:LoadLevelType ;
  sh:in (
  ex:Light
  ex:Normal
  ex:Heavy
) ;
.

Cheers,
David

> On 21 Apr 2020, at 10:07, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> If I want to move:
>  
> ex:loadLevel
>   a rdf:Property ;
>   rdfs:domain ex:Vehicle ;
>   rdfs:range ex:LoadLevelType ;
> .
>  
> ex:LoadLevelType
>   a rdfs:Class ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf smls:EnumerationType ;
>   owl:oneOf (
>   ex:Light
>   ex:Normal
>   ex:Heavy
> ) ;
> .
>  
> To SHACL; what is the best way to handle the owl:oneOf?
>  
> 1.  in a property shape for loadLevel involving sh:targetSubjectsOf with sh:in
>  
> 2. in the nodeshape for vehicle with sh:in on with path ex:loadLevel
>  
> For rdfs ranges I use 2. in case there is also a domain and 1. In case there 
> is no domain, but here the constraint is more generic on the range class.
>  
> Thx Michel
>  
> Ps
> Related:
> In general wouldn’t it be more precise to always map a range to a property 
> shape (involving targetSubjectsOf) so also in case there is a domain 
> clause...since domain and range are fully independent
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/33cb2621c13641ffbf7e027bf9111354%40tno.nl
>  
> .

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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/DD08E718-3A78-4210-B9B1-3C48353AC734%40topquadrant.com.

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

RE: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

Re: [topbraid-users] owl:oneOf to shacl ?

17 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information