My subjective answer: RDFS has OWA semantics, but RDFS has so little expressivity that it’s OW-ness doesn’t really become a problem. So I would consider the inclusion of RDFS definitions “mostly harmless”. Especially rdfs:subClassOf is fine. I find rdfs:domain and rdfs:range more problematic, but that’s not because of OWA per se, but because their semantics is not what most people expect.
Richard > On 4 Jul 2018, at 08:01, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <[email protected]> wrote: > > In case the purpose of modelling is really ‘data validation’ would it be > better to go for SHACL-only (ie CWA-only) or still combine SHACL with RDFS? > (like in http://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html > <http://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html>). Would there be a downside of a > SHACL-only approach. Like always having to specify properties in the context > of a shape? > > In case of validation AND data sharing would it still work or would it be > better to use ‘RDFS + SHACL’ where the SHACL is separately used at say 2 > validation sides (importing the RDFS) and RDFS-only for the sharing spec? > But then introducing some potential OWA/inference in the middle (that doesn’t > HAVE to be utilized). Or is all THAT inference harmless wrt OWA/CWA > discussion (ie inferencing rdfs superclass instantiation). > > Thx for your views 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> > > > <image001.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 > <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.
