Appendix: The link to the SPARQL endpoint (step 1) on a locally
executing TBC-ME is
http://localhost:8083/tbl/sparql
Holger
On 11/01/2017 9:15, Holger Knublauch wrote:
Hello Paula,
apologies for the delay - your message arrived during the holiday
season and was then miscategorized.
There is indeed a bug in Tagger in that it only allows you to select
properties that have skos:Concept as their (direct) rdfs:range. I have
fixed this bug for the next release (5.3), and from then on people
will be able to also select properties that have a sub-property of
skos:Concept as range.
Meanwhile, you would need to do a manual work-around:
0) Make sure that the server enables SPARQL updates (in the Server
configuration parameters page)
1) Open the SPARQL endpoint page at
2) Execute the following update, here for the example of
tagged_paintings and a testProp property:
INSERT {
GRAPH <urn:x-evn-master:tagged_paintings> {
<urn:x-evn-master:tagged_paintings>
<http://evn.topbraidlive.org/tagger#tagProperty>
<http://example.org/taggerProps#testProp>
}
}
WHERE {
}
This query is the backdoor of telling your Tagger vocabulary which
properties to offer in the drop down box for tagging.
HTH
Holger
On 31/12/2016 2:17, Paula Markes wrote:
Hello,
I’ve been trying out the auto-classifier in tagger and have a question.
I use multiple tagging properties and each one should only have it's
triple object assigned from a specific part of the taxonomy tree.
The taxonomies are SKOS based, but they have subclasses of
skos:Concept which are used as types for instances in different
taxonomy trees. What I would really like to do is assign specific
classes as the range to a tagging property. But if the tagging
property range is not skos:Concept, I cannot complete Step 2 of
building thee tagset because the properties do not show up in the
“Default Tag Property” drop down list box or in the “Tag Properties”
check box.
Is there some way this can be updated to allow the use of a specific
range for the tagging property and not only skos:Concept?
At this time, the only way I can see as a work around for this to
work with the auto-classifier is to actually create a tagset for each
individual tagging property, and make sure the “Content Vocabulary”
in Step 1 only has the specific tree or trees that have the
appropriate terms for the objects of the tagging properties. And as
we normally work with multiple tagging properties, this would mean
designing the Tagsets around the properties versus around the content
collections. And because there was a need to have specific
collections of information in separate content graphs, doing this
type of separate by tagging property could really multiple the number
of tagsets in use.
Does this makes sense? Can you share your thoughts on this?
-Paula
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid
Suite Users", the topics of which include the TopBraid Suite family of products and
its base technologies such as 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.
