Dear Holger, One more issue on OWL versus SHACL. Wrt owl:sameAs its says at http://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html:
[cid:[email protected]] So it says: no need because diff. by default. I can understand this in case of a CWA situation. But what about in a link between two resources from two different/independent parties (say both CWA). I would still need owl:sameAs to connect those right? (it feels a bit like global OWA/local CWA: anybody can make his own CWA ontology). In case the two parties would agree some reference data set (in my case the names/ids for NL roads) I guess this agreement creates a kind of common CWA situation between the two parties and then again indeed owl:sameAs is not needed anymore (?). Thanks for your view 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=!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: zondag 8 oktober 2017 01:22 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] owl-shacl question 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<http://www.symantec.com>) -----Original Message----- From: Holger Knublauch [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Received: zaterdag, 07 okt. 2017, 1:15 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[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 > 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…. 😊 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]<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.
