RE: [topbraid-users] constraint violation

Bohms, H.M. (Michel) Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:06:54 -0700

Hi Jack,

In my case I do it this way because I am under the (maybe false) assumption 
that it is THE way to do it 😊.
What would be better though here, is to make it a subclass iso a 
equivalentclass. Because not all things with such restricted area are actually 
a bigspace....


Or is that maybe what you actually meant?

If you know of any other way to specify such a class more directly than via 
subclass/equivalent class I am very interested!

(I also compared with examples in owl spec like involving definition of 
"Teenager").

Greetings, Michel

Just for info, I now have:

:BigSpace
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  owl:disjointWith :SmallSpace ;
  owl:equivalentClass [
      rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:allValuesFrom [
          rdf:type rdfs:Datatype ;
          owl:onDatatype xsd:float ;
          owl:withRestrictions (
              [
                xsd:minExclusive "150.0"^^xsd:float ;
              ]
            ) ;
        ] ;
      owl:onProperty :area ;
    ] ;
.
Or better:
:BigSpace
  rdf:type owl:Class ;
  owl:disjointWith :SmallSpace ;
  rdfs:subClassOf [
      rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:allValuesFrom [
          rdf:type rdfs:Datatype ;
          owl:onDatatype xsd:float ;
          owl:withRestrictions (
              [
                xsd:minExclusive "150.0"^^xsd:float ;
              ]
            ) ;
        ] ;
      owl:onProperty :area ;
    ] ;
.


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

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E [email protected]
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. 







-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
On Behalf Of Jack Hodges
Sent: vrijdag 25 augustus 2017 16:01
To: TopBraid Suite Users <[email protected]>
Subject: [topbraid-users] constraint violation

Although I would do this kind of thing with SHACL I have a larger (I think) 
question. I see a lot of people embedding content logic in owl:equivalentClass 
expressions when they have no actual class. Why do people do that? Wouldn't it 
be better to have an area property and then define the BigPump class as having 
an area greater than the said amount? I could see, if you wanted to have some 
numeric evaluation and didn't want that numeric evaluation become part of the 
class taxonomy making a rule or a validator, but I do not understand this 
phantom class in an equivalence statement and I see it all the time. What is 
the rationale, and what is the best practice in class design?

Jack

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

RE: [topbraid-users] constraint violation

Reply via email to