If you say > ex2:Category > rdf:type owl:Class ; > rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; > sh:in ( > ex2:Pub > ex2:Adult > ex2:Senior
Then, if a triple such as ex2:Teen a ex2:Category is added, there will a violation. So, if you want to make sure that no one would be able to add more members to the ex2:Category class without triggering an issue, then yes, do use sh:in. > On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:53 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users > <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > Hi Irene > > Thx for your extensive feedback, much appreciated. > > The situation I now have is the following: > > I DO have both in: > > ex2:Category > rdf:type owl:Class ; > rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; > owl:oneOf ( > ex2:Pub > ex2:Adult > ex2:Senior > ) ; > > ex2:Pub a ex2:Category. > ex2:Adult ex2:Category. > ex2:Senior ex2:Category. > > And my idea was: I add the oneof to the category class to indicate a > closed/fixed list (assume for the moment the example was on dogs where the > three allowed items are really all, no such thing as teen-dog ie. 😊). > > I understand the owl-owa level reasoning issues. I am most interested in the > cwa-shacl interpretation. > > Generatings shacl for above gives me: > > ex2:Dog > rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; > sh:property [ > rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ; > sh:path ex2:category ; > sh:class ex2:Category ; > sh:maxCount 1 ; > sh:minCount 1 ; > ] ; > > For Category I see however no shacl generated. So if I understand you right > there is no need too for data verification. > > So…making a diff. for closed and open/extendable lists of allowed enumeration > items seems to have no effect on my actual shacl-cwa validation right? > > Its just having a function on spec level I guess: with oneOf > closed > list….no oneOf of…open list. Or can I better leave the one of out here too? > (again the simpler/less the better…). > > Thx again, Michel > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl> > 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. > > > > > From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Irene Polikoff > Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 04:00 > To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] oneOf in shacl > > Holger is correct. But additionally, this example calls for some reflection > on the goal of this modeling pattern - having owl:oneOf in the first place. > > OWL is open world. This means that if you say the following: > > ex2:Category > rdf:type owl:Class ; > rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; > rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing. > ex2:Pub a ex2:Category. > ex2:Adult ex2:Category. > ex2:Senior ex2:Category. > > And, for example, > > ex2:hasCategory rdfs:range ex2:Category. > > And then > > ex2:Asset1 ex2:hasCategory ex:Teen > > There will be no inconsistency detected. > > ex2:Teen will be inferred to be a ex2:Category, if you use an inference > engine. > > Even if you use owl:oneOf as shown in your example below, there still would > still be no inconsistency since under the OWA, ex2:Teen could be the same as > either ex2:Pub, ex2:Adult and ex2:Senior. > > One possible way to get some checking/enforcing out of owl:oneOf would be if > your data always included owl:differentFrom assertions: > > ex2:Teen owl:differentFrom ex2:Pub; > owl:differentFrom ex2:Adult; > owl:differentFrom ex2:Senior. > > Such information, however, is rarely part of the data and you would need a DL > reasoner to detect this violation if data was present. > > Or, another way to detect inconsistency would be if you had something like: > > ex2:Teen a ex2:NotACategory. > ex2:NotACategory.owl:disjointWith ex2:Category. > > But in this case inconsistency would be detected even if you did not use > owl:oneOf since the inference would be that ex2:Teen is both a category and > not a category and these classes are disjoint. So, oneOf does not buy you > anything in this case. > > > With SHACL, you do not need to say sh:in on the Shape Node level. You can > simply have: > > ex2:Pub a ex2:Category. > ex2:Adult ex2:Category. > ex2:Senior ex2:Category. > > The range statement would be translated into the property shape with sh:class > ex2:Category constraint. > > And a statement {ex2:Asset1 ex2:hasCategory ex:Teen} will be reported as an > issue. > > With this, my personal preference would be to translate > > ex2:Category > owl:oneOf ( > ex2:Pub > ex2:Adult > ex2:Senior > ) ; > > Into > > ex2:Pub a ex2:Category. > ex2:Adult ex2:Category. > ex2:Senior ex2:Category. > > Having said this, such decisions depend on the goals and intensions of the > modeler. > > > On Oct 31, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Holger Knublauch <hol...@topquadrant.com > <mailto:hol...@topquadrant.com>> wrote: > > Yes, sh:in at a node shape states that all target nodes (here: the instances > of ex2:Category) must be one of the enumerated values. > > Holger > > > > > On 1/11/2018 2:29 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users wrote: > > > ex2:Category > rdf:type owl:Class ; > rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; > rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing ; > owl:oneOf ( > ex2:Pub > ex2:Adult > ex2:Senior > ) ; > . > > What would the shacl look like for the yellow part? > > > sh:in (ex2:Pub ex2:Adult ex2:Senior) ; > > Somehow….but it is not in a property shape right? > thx > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl> > Location > > > <image001.gif> > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
