Hi Holger
Still open.. for now we analyse how complex the modelling sec is.

(but validation would be more relevant than autom. classification).

And we best compare in case of “all in owl/rdfs/rdf”,
Gr michel



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


T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

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:[email protected]]<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.









From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch
Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 01:25
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] RE: owl modelling issue in tbc

Hi Michel,

do you need these restrictions for classification purposes or constraint 
checking? I believe this would inform the technology choice.

Note that TopBraid has very limited support for OWL QCRs, esp not for form 
validation.

Holger

On 9/05/2017 5:32, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:
Trying myself it seems that:
:Bridge
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing ;
  rdfs:subClassOf [
      rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:onClass [
          rdf:type owl:Class ;
          rdfs:subClassOf :Quantity ;
          rdfs:subClassOf [
              rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
              owl:onClass [
                  rdf:type owl:Class ;
                  rdfs:subClassOf :QuantityKind ;
                  rdfs:subClassOf [
                      rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
                      owl:hasValue :Height ;
                      owl:onProperty :hasQuantityKind ;
                    ] ;
                ] ;
              owl:onProperty :hasQuantityKind ;
              owl:qualifiedCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
            ] ;
        ] ;
      owl:onProperty :hasQuantity ;
      owl:qualifiedCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
    ] ;
.

Does not give any error in tbc, so it might be actually what I was after!
Anyway, comments on correctness still very welcome!

Thx Michel






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



T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=%213m1%214b1%214m5%213m4%211s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88%218m2%213d52.000788%214d4.376707>



[cid:[email protected]]<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.









From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Sent: maandag 8 mei 2017 15:04
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: owl modelling issue in tbc


Dear all,

I am comparing different approaches for modelling “attributes”:

  1.  Simple/most direct as OWL datatype properties
  2.  As classes to allow for more meta-data like units
  3.  As named individuals according to QUDT2.0 (NASA/TQ).

One of the criteria is the complexity of restrictions. As example I look at a 
card=1 restriction for a height attribute for a Bridge class.
The first 2 are quite easy (the first is most simple/direct OWL, the second 
option needs some property chaining) but the third one I am unsure whether I 
can stay within OWL or that I have to move into SPIN/SHACL/…. territory.

EXAMPLE

Having from qudt2.0:
qudt:hasQuantity, qudt:hasValue, qudt:Quantity, qudt:hasQuantityKind.

And defined:

:Bridge rdf:type owl:Class .
:Height rdf:type qudt:QuantityKind .

I am looking for an OWL (RDFS/RDF)-based restriction for the red part below 
(avoiding extra explicit subclasses):

:Bridge rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf [rdf:type owl:restriction ;
“there exists one Quantity via qudt:hasQuantity, having 
qudt:hasQuantityKind=:Height
.

owl:hasValue doesn’t seem to help because it’s too restrictive (there can be 
other attributes).
owl:someValuesFrom seems to work on the class-level only
some special expression possible?
ie some QCR (card=1) on qudt:hasQuantity where the Qualified-part is an 
intersection of qudt:Quantity AND owl:hasValue qudt:hasQuantity=Height?
Thx a lot for your advice! Or suggestion for a more general forum to post such 
a question…(apologies upfront)
Michel Böhms, TNO (NL)




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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Location<https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=%213m1%214b1%214m5%213m4%211s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88%218m2%213d52.000788%214d4.376707>



[cid:[email protected]]<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 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 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.

Reply via email to