See https://twitter.com/wohnjalker/status/915982539747028992
Ø Great summary! 😊 As a slightly more serious response, I agree that URIs from the OWL namespace may be useful even without OWL semantics. owl:imports is clearly useful, and even referenced by the SHACL spec. owl:versionInfo and the deprecation mechanisms can be useful, but they don't carry OWL semantics. Whether owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty provide value is a matter of debate. I believe as long as there are sh:class and sh:datatype or sh:nodeKind constraints in place, then there is no need for them. I am not fond of global property axioms in general, but that's another topic. Maybe there is value in going through the ways that people have used OWL so far and verify how many of them were really designed for OWL (DL) inferencing. Maybe you have examples of axioms in your world, that you could share here so that we can see what would be left that isn't covered by SHACL or other non-OWL vocabularies. >well so far the distinction between attributes/datatypeproperties and >relationships/objectproperties has proven useful since they in the end say >something about intrinsic properties of things and the more role-based >extrinsic properties towards other independent things which is a quite basic >notion in conceptual modelling not only in LD/SW but in any other earlier >modelling system. But always interesting of course to rethink…. > owl:import hopefully obsolete in a future where all is dereferenceable… >owl:equivalent could be two way rdfs:subClassOf of course >owl:sameAs is seen as important but has big issues too (is it really sameAs >that you want etc. ie what does it mean, don’t you really want a weaker thing; >and in CWA can be done via UNA anyway) > unionOf/intersectionOf but I expect they have counterpart in shacl > inverse properties >disjointWith /propertydisjointWith > So actually main concern is distinction in attributes and relationships (or > if you like values and references) in the end…. 😊 Gr michel Holger On 6/10/2017 16:49, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: Thx Holger, for the argumentation (SoC)! Just…. I could see a scenario in future where in CWA-area OWL could be fully replaced by SHACL (ie retire OWL). Because there are no dependencies as you explain below there are certainly no technical restraints for something like that. But then…..aren’t we losing more that we want? Clearly we want to replace OWA Restrictions to SHACL Shapes. But what about eg the distinction in datatype properties and object properties and other very useful OWL modelling constructs…ie wouldn’t there be a need for an OWL Light or RDFS+ to combine cleanly with SHACL then? Thanks very much for your views again, 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch Sent: woensdag 4 oktober 2017 09:50 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] owl-shacl question The pros are that users that don't want/need to use OWL don't have to import these axioms, and thus the RDF files that you are producing are more focused - think of separation of concerns, which is generally a good engineering practice. SHACL doesn't need OWL, OWL doesn't need SHACL, so there is no reason to stack them on top of each other. If projects plan ahead they can also more easily retire any part of their stack that is no longer needed. Finally, having OWL axioms around may create false expectations or confuse the view point from a SHACL perspective (although the axioms are technically ignored, users may expect inferencing to happen). Holger On 4/10/2017 17:28, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: Ok, any pros for the new approach (compared to just owl-rdfs/shacl split) very welcome, 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=%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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch Sent: woensdag 4 oktober 2017 09:02 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] owl-shacl question Sure, that should work without problems. The suggested split is mostly for new projects that are under your control. Holger Sent from my iPad On 4 Oct 2017, at 16:49, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Irene, Holger In http://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html it is suggested to have the following ‘architecture’: <image002.png> Would I lose much benefit when I simplify a bit by just having OWL/RDFS (with owl/rdfs owa inferencing) on top and (several) SHACL views (with shacl cwa validation and inferencing (rule part)) below. (I just mention ‘several’because typically there are more validation-views possible working on the same conceptual owl-view). Just looking for pros and cons. One of the reasons is that in practically all existing ontologies relevant for us do not have the split yet in rdfs and owl…just an example: a very recent proposal that I really like: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/, is in OWL-DL. I want to directly reuse and pref. not split first in a RDFS part and an OWL-DL part. Thx for your advice here, 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> <image003.gif><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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
