Dear Irene, see below after >
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> [cid:image001.gif@01D4722D.8DA91430]<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 <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Irene Polikoff Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 20:00 To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question Michel, RDFS+OWL offer users ability to define a large number of model patterns. In developing a translator, we did not have a goal to covert all possible patterns. This would have been quite hard and require a lot of effort. Instead, our goal was to help bootstrap moving to SHACL by covering roughly 80% of what a model may contain. > of course I appreciate that. My statement was not in general but only on the > specifics dealing with rdfs:range conversion (I thought this would be clear > from my message). Anyway, please be assured I fully appreciate your 80% as it > is! So to be fully clear: I think your shacl conversion stuff is great. > Especially the way you do it via transparent shacl is brilliant and a fine > showcase for its power! We started by identifying ontologies to test the conversion with. One of these ontologies was FIBO (as described in the blog a gave a link to) and there were a few others. Quite likely these models did not have this particular pattern. Further, in some cases, there could be more than one way of interpreting/translating/mapping statements from the source ontology into SHACL shapes. > of course I hope(d) that this rdfs:range as IMHO not-so-very-particular > pattern would be part of the 80% 😊 So, no. The converter is not complete. If it does not cover some common patterns in the ontologies you need to convert, then you can add a rule yourself by following the example. Some axioms/modeling styles can be very complex making it hard to create a general rule. The would then need to be dealt with in the case by case basis. > see above (I never said something on completeness in a general sense). So > perfectly ok. > and no, I have no intention to write rules myself! I am perfectly happy to > wait for your extensions that are then used consistently by all! Your example is not complex to convert. Sometimes, a parent property may have no domain statement because it is there simply to support rdfs:subPropertyOf reasoning. It would then have child properties that declare a domain. IN any case, I see no harm in translating it the way you have suggested. One issue may be in figuring out convention for the URI of the newly generated property shapes. Converted is using <class local name>-<property local name> pattern for the property shapes that are resources. In this case, another convention is needed. > yep, it would face the same naming convention issue as I would do it manually > myself indeed. With respect to your question of generating global property shapes even when a domain statement exists, this would not be the most accurate translation. Domain statement says that all subjects of triples with the predicate equal to the property must be members of the domain class. Thus, there could not be :R :p :V where :p rdfs:domain :C and :R is not a SHACL instance of :C. >true, but that was not my point. My point is that :R can still be an instance >of (also) another class (if my interpretation of rdfs:domain semantics is >right). And the range would then also be relevant for these other classes! And >this can only be done if the (global) range gets a global CWA/shacle >counterpart! And if not, the class specific variants will always be >‘incomplete’ (THAT was the specific potential incompleteness I was referring >too). But I am happy if you prove me wrong here! 😊 Formulated otherwise: my idea: a global owa constraint needs a global cwa constraint, kind of law of conservation of globalness 😊 Greetings, Michel On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:38 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Thx all clear..i will define the range only stuff manually One question still....arent the ranges for properties having a domain also not best treated with a separate global shacle shape? Since those ranges not only hold for the class at the domain but for all classes? Said otherwise...is your current converter conplete? So what about in the future only generating global property shapes for all ranges..with or without domain...in favour of the current shacl for the domain classes? Or am i now wrongly interpreting domain semantics? My assump. Is that a domain clause says nothing about nondomain classes having the property.... Gr m Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com<http://www.symantec.com>) -----Original Message----- From: Irene Polikoff [ir...@topquadrant.com<mailto:ir...@topquadrant.com>] Received: donderdag, 01 nov. 2018, 17:58 To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> [topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>] Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question Domains and ranges are transformed into Property Shapes as follows: rdfs:domain statements are converted to property shapes connected to the classes that are objects in {?property rdfs:domain ?object} statements. Classes will get a rdf:type sh:NodeShape triple. If there is a rdfs:range statement for the property, resulting shapes will have either sh:class or sh:datatype constraint components that correspond to the range. Thus, if a property does not have a domain statement, but has a range statement, there will be no property shape generated. I can see how it would make a sense in this case to generate a property shape with a sh:targetSubjectsOf target, but it is not done at the moment. You can see the details on what is being converted here https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/. The file that contains conversion rules is available in the TopBraid/SHACL project. On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:43 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Hi David, Wrt “Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but …”, I’ll try to be more precise (please tell me if I am wrong) With owa I meant OWL/RDFS open world interpretation With cwa I meant SHACL closed world interpretation In OWA/OWL we have two kinds of restrictions: 1) for a class (I call them local) and 2) for a property (I call them global). Global ones are the universal ones: the hold for a property where ever they are applied in what ever class context. So - local > owl restrictions for classes - global> o.a. rdfs domain/ranges for properties (datatype or object properties) So I understand now that domain/ranges are not transformed into shacl PropertyShapes. They are only taken into account when their properties feature in a local owl restriction for a class resulting in local shapes in the context of a NodeShape for that class. We see quite some use cases where properties have no domain (to keep them flexibly applicable) and are also not constrained for specific classes. In these situations we still want to have cwa shacl code to check the data aginst their range (datatype or class). But ok that is quite a different discussion topic. Gr 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 <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. From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of dprice Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 17:17 To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question On 1 Nov 2018, at 14:42, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Ok, so global cwa shapes are not (?yet) generated, thx Don’t understand what “global” or “cwa” have to do with it but … OWL Object and Datatype properties without an rdfs:domain and not mentioned in a restriction on a class do not result in property shapes as part of the OWL-to-SHACL rules. The owl2shacl generation was implemented using rules, found in TopBraid/SHACL/owl2shacl.ttl, so that it could be modified and/or extended or replaced by customers as they see fit. There may not be a one-size-fits all approach to the OWL to SHACL language conversion. The coverage of the current rules is explained on our Web site: https://www.topquadrant.com/2018/05/01/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/ Properties with no related class are typically only created in generic, high level ontologies that are reused in more specific ontologies where they appear in restrictions. In that situation, the SHACL should be generated from those more specific ontologies, not the generic, high level ones. There’s a similar issue with range-less properties, which OWL also allows. Cheers, David 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. From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of dprice Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 15:11 To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question On 1 Nov 2018, at 13:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Ok, thx I think I have to reformulate my issue then. Is there any global PropertyShape generation at the moment? Ie property shapes not in context of a NodeShape. Just tested this in Composer 6.0.0 by making an OWL object and OWL datatype property with no domains and no OWL classes in the graph. I don’t see anything referencing the two properties after running inferences. Ie when I have no class restrictions but only property restrictions like domain and range. Are these now generated by the shacl-convertor? Example Generated: sh:property [ rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ; sh:path ex2:name ; sh:datatype xsd:string ; sh:maxCount 1 ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] ; For ex2:Dog only. But is there also a global: Ex2:NameShape rdf:type sh:PropertyShape ; sh:tagetsSubjectsOf ex2:name ; sh:datatype xsd:string ; ] ; Generated? That can be used validating values for names for all classes… If yes, where could I find it (do not see it as instance of PropertyShape If no, is that something to do manually? Could it be in the converter in principle? You can make additional rules if you want, to generate anything you want. You can also modify owl2shacl yourself if you want to include your new rules, to delete existing rules, etc. Cheers, David 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. From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of dprice Sent: donderdag 1 november 2018 14:33 To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] general shacl question On 1 Nov 2018, at 12:02, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote: I saw: owl2shacl:rdfsRange2shClassOrDatatype rdf:type sh:SPARQLRule ; rdfs:comment "For each relevant property that has an rdfs:range, create sh:class or sh:datatype constraint unless it already exists (from a restriction)." ; That means if sh:class or sh:datatype are already set in the property shape, don’t duplicate the statement. That’s what this does: FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?propertyShape sh:class|sh:datatype ?any } . this triggers some questions for me: suppose the property is restricted for some specific class…shouldn’t it then be still generated (as propertyshape) for other classes? (for say instance verification for other classes where it might be used but where it is not restricted)? And How does this relate to a domain spec? The rule is against NodeShape, no matter how the NodeShape got there so not really related to the logic wrt rdfs:domain. I thought that in case of a domain spec nodeshape info is generated too (like the more general hasPart examples earlier?). Are they then generated or not (could not find them so quickly after generation). An if that is the case, shouldn’t it say “(from a restriction or domain)” iso of just “(from a restriction)”? The “from a restriction” is not actually involved in the rule logic. It’s just a suggestion to the reader about how there might already be a sh:class/sh:datatype for the property shape already related to the NodeShape in question. That said, I don’t see any rule generating sh:class from an rdfs:domain so the comment is likely accurate. Cheers, David thx ps guess it has to do with unless it already exists (from a restriction)." Meaning in a separate propertyshape…not within a nodeshape (anonymous) In hat case I have another question: generating shacl with explicit property shapes (option) seems to give more functionality that only in context class, right? (also giving validation options for classes not restricting) 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. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- 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. -- 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. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- 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. -- 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. UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 US +1 (336) 283-0808 -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
