I agree that replacing the old label only if it differs from a default
(based on the graph ID) is a good policy. Recorded for 6.2.
Meanwhile please pre-process the files in TBC before importing.
Holger
On 14/11/2018 11:32 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<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.
