Yes! this is the case. The obvious fix would be:
ASK WHERE {
?this ?prop ?obj .
?prop rdfs:domain ?domain .
?this a ?domainType .
FILTER (?domain != ?domainType) .
}
But this brings up a couple of other things. First, the type triple
will mismatch if the class is defined as an owl:Class (the domain for
rdf:type is rdfs:Resource). So a filter is needed for that.
Also, in the absence of further information, the constraint warning is
hung on the type triple. It would be more informative to put it on
the property. Using the spin:ConstraintViolation definition is useful
here:
CONSTRUCT {
_:b0 a spin:ConstraintViolation .
_:b0 spin:violationRoot ?this .
_:b0 spin:violationPath ?prop .
_:b0 rdfs:label "subject does not match defined domain type " .
}
WHERE {
?this ?prop ?obj .
?prop rdfs:domain ?domain .
?this a ?domainType .
FILTER (?domain != ?domainType) .
FILTER (?prop != rdf:type) .
}
This will place the warning on the property that has the violation.
Hope that helps and thanks again!
-- Scott
On Mar 1, 4:45 pm, Lowell Vizenor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> You might want to rethink the example you gave below for property
> domain definitions. The spin:constraint (as you defined it) flags all
> the cases where the subject matches the defined domain type.
>
> --Lowell
>
> On Feb 9, 12:54 pm, Scott Henninger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Christoph; Using SPIN requires a different way of thinking about the
> > problem. I believe what you want to state is that any use of the a
> > property needs to have a resource of the correct domain/range type
> > (correct me if I am misreading your intent). You can state this (more
> > directly) as a spin:constraint - here's an example for property domain
> > defs:
>
> > # subject does not match defined domain type
> > ASK WHERE {
> > ?this ?prop ?obj .
> > ?prop rdfs:domain ?domain .
> > ?this a ?domain .
>
> > }
>
> > The constraint warning will show the text you put in the initial
> > comment - i.e. all instance of this violation will state "subject does
> > not match defined domain type (SPIN constraint at owl:Thing)" I
> > defined this at owl:Thing, but could have defined it for
> > rdfs:Resource, rdfs:class, or my:fiddlestyx. That's a big modeling
> > advantage, IMHO.
>
> > You can also define this as a CONSTRUCT query, instead of ASK, and
> > make all violations a member of a class, such as
> > spin:ConstraintViolation.
>
> > Holger's blog (http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/) has
> > excellent examples.
>
> > In terms of Pellet 2, if some entity were to do us the favor of
> > creating a 3rd party plugin, there would be no licensing
> > complications...
>
> > -- Scott
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TopBraid Composer Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
