On 8/10/2017 1:59, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:
Ok clear...so owl only offers in the end some more (global) semantic
sugar here....I assume the uncontrained property sec IS still globally
available as rdf:property, right? (and just locally/atclass RESTRICTED)
Yes, defining an rdf:Property is part of RDF/Schema. Also declaring
rdfs:label and rdfs:comment. SHACL has per-shape equivalents for these
(sh:name, sh:description).
Holger
Thx Michel
Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)
-----Original Message-----
*From:* Holger Knublauch [[email protected]]
*Received:* zaterdag, 07 okt. 2017, 1:15
*To:* [email protected] [[email protected]]
*Subject:* Re: [topbraid-users] owl-shacl question
On 6/10/2017 18:44, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote:
See https://twitter.com/wohnjalker/status/915982539747028992
<https://twitter.com/wohnjalker/status/915982539747028992>
ĆGreat summary! š
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 rethinkā¦.
> owl:import hopefully obsolete in a future where all is dereferenceableā¦
>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, donāt 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 endā¦. š
On the owl:Datatype/ObjectProperty topic, why would
sh:datatype/sh:class/sh:nodeKind not be sufficient? The only
difference is that the latter are per-shape, which is similar to how
most other languages such as UML or XML handle these things - the
concept of global property declarations are pretty unique to semantic
web technology. But for a tool there is little difference on whether
you check (in SPARQL)
?property a owl:DatatypeProperty
vs
?ps sh:path ?property .
?ps sh:nodeKind sh:Literal .
Note that even the former case (in OWL) is not sufficient - you would
still need to add code to query for the cases of untyped properties or
properties that have rdf:type rdf:Property and then declare an
rdfs:range or owl:allValuesFrom restrictions. The SHACL variant looks
more pragmatic compared to that.
Holger
--
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.
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].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
