Yes I understand that.
But anything like this feels like a custom, one-off, solution, and that
entais some disadvantages.
For example, it ties the SPIN rule to the specific ontology. In another
ontology, you'll have to reimplement the rule.
It, also, ties this information to the rule definition, when in reality it
should belong to the class definition.
Inferencing also comes into play and you have to account for that too.
That's why I was asking for a generic, SPIN defined solution.
Judging from the answer I understand there is probably not a way to achieve
this in a generic, ontology-independent, way, at least currently
Do you think this is a feature that we could hope for in a newer SPIN
revision?
In a nutshell, it would extend the object-oriented notion of SPIN
rules/constraints inheritance with the ability to override/shadow/retract
specific rules/constraints for given subclass(es)
Τη Παρασκευή, 3 Απριλίου 2015 - 2:41:56 μ.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης Scott
Henninger έγραψε:
>
> Nikolaos; One approach would be to FILTER out the class instances. I.e.:
>
> { ?this :prop ?value .
> ...
> ?undesiredInstance a :SubClass1 .
> FILTER (?this != ?undesiredInstance)
> }
>
> -- Scott
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Nikolaos Beredimas <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> Quoting from http://www.w3.org/Submission/spin-modeling/ :
>
> In other words, SPIN class descriptors can only "narrow down" and further
>> restrict what has been defined further up in the class hierarchy. In this
>> spirit, *global* class descriptions are those that are attached to the
>> root class rdfs:Resource or its OWL equivalent owl:Thing.
>
>
>
> So if you define a rule/constraint/... for owl:Thing, it is a global rule.
> It applies to every subclass of owl:Thing automatically.
>
> I have come across some use cases where this isn't the desirable behavior.
> I was wondering, therefore, if there is a stanard, SPIN way, of annotating
> a class, or the top class of a sub-hierarchy of classes, to exclude a
> specific rule/constraint or a collection of rules/constraints from applying
> to this class/classes.
> Ofc, I could edit said class and annotate it with a custom property, and
> edit the spin rule/constraint accordingly to check for that annotation
> or, I could edit the classes hierarchy and move said class to a different
> hierarchy
> or any other custom solution.
>
> But I was wondering if there was a SPIN specified way of doing this.
>
> TL;DR
> How to exclude specified SPIN rules from applying to specified subclasses,
> using only the SPIN vocabulary
>
> PS. Apologies if the answer is too obvious
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
> "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary
> Network (EVN), Reference Data Manager (RDM), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid
> Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <javascript:>
> ---
> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
"TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary
Network (EVN), Reference Data Manager (RDM), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live,
TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
---
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
