Yes - the Use Case is an aggregation, but I want to use TBC to edit these,
so i need the import of the model, and an ontology object.

feels like this behaviour should be optional if you really have a good use
case to replace it repeatedly - otherwise maybe detect if its the default
name and replace only first time.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 12:13, Holger Knublauch <hol...@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> apologies for the geeky reply. The relevant code is
>
>
>             // TBS-94: Copy other useful triples into main owl:Ontology
>             for(Resource ont : model.listSubjectsWithProperty(RDF.type,
> OWL.Ontology).toList()) {
>                 for(Statement s : ont.listProperties().toList()) {
>                     if(!s.getObject().isAnon() &&
> !SWA.defaultNamespace.equals(s.getPredicate()) &&
> !RDF.type.equals(s.getPredicate())) {
>                         model.add(ontology, s.getPredicate(),
> s.getObject());
>                         if(RDFS.label.equals(s.getPredicate())) {
>                             // Replace rdfs:labels so that the teamwork
> graph doesn't have two labels
>
> deleteModel.add(ontology.listProperties(RDFS.label));
>                         }
>                     }
>                 }
>             }
> So it copies most triples, but replaces the rdfs:label. This policy is of
> course debatable, and I believe it has been discussed before. On one hand
> the label should be replaced in cases where the user has simply created a
> new empty graph and then imports an existing RDF file from a previous
> export. In that case the original label didn't mean much. But OTOH there
> can be cases where this policy is not desirable. What kind of file are you
> importing that shouldn't cause this behavior? Is this some kind of
> accumulation of TTL files into one?
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 14/11/2018 9:48 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> If the imported RDF file declares an object as an Ontology with a label
> then the importing it into an Asset Collection  interferes with the
> existing label.
>
> What other metadata is affected (owl:imports) - and what should be the
> contract here - IMHO Ontology objects should be ignored on import if they
> are referenced inside EDG - or at least the behaviour needs to be
> explicitly explained on the default import page.
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to