On 30/05/2019 5:33 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
using an EDG datatypes, to leverage the nice Lineagegram views of
dependencies - and to integrate description of semantic components
with external system descriptions..
so we want to be able to look at stuff within EDG as well as those
other systems and map dependencies across boundaries.
with polymorphism (the big topic here we can discuss) i want to be
able to model the same things as ontologies, shapes and "datatypes"
Right, several algorithms such as our diagrams expect instances of
certain classes, and relations with certain property URIs. These can be
produced with transformations, e.g. via SHACL rules or path expressions.
It would be a useful exercise to try out whether mappings for your use
cases can be expressed using SHACL, esp sh:values. Shapes as views. Once
this is established, the next step would be to decide whether to run
transformation rules as batch processes, or whether they can be computed
on the fly. The GraphQL engine for example does such transforms on the
fly. So assuming you have
ex:MyDatatype a rdfs:Datatype ...
and our algorithm or diagramming component expects
ex:MyDatatype a edg:Datatype ...
then a shape could probably produce the lower structure and a future
Lineagegram might fetch its data via a fixed set of GraphQL queries
(where the fields get mapped to SHACL property shapes backed by the
transforms but the names of the fields are hard-coded by the Lineagegram
component). Ontological commitment needs to start somewhere...
Details would need to be evaluated.
not sure I fully grok "higher level domain classes" however..
"higher level" is relative. I meant RDFS/OWL vocabulary as lower level
here than some EDG domain ontology. Technically these things are of
course similar, but they differ in the variety of hard-coded algorithms
that exist for them.
regardless, i still think my original report identifies a problem - it
should not be illegal for includes to specify classes, otherwise you
cant back your asset collection with your own specialised data types.
(perhaps file importers could factor out classes and create ontologies
automatically and include them - or even fail and point the user at a
pair of services which does that and spits out the ontology and
instances as separate graphs they can persist however they like..)
You can include any Ontology that has all freedom. But not if you are
inside of one of the non-ontology collections, because TopBraid needs to
be able to distinguish classes from instance data so that it can keep
its internal structures (e.g. caches and GraphQL schemas) reasonably up
to date.
Holger
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 16:34:08 UTC+10, Holger Knublauch wrote:
The EDG Datatypes collection type was designed to contain
instances of edg:Datatype only, which are higher level domain
classes than RDFS datatypes. If you are not using these
edg:Datatypes, why not create an Ontology collection for your
datatypes? Or the reverse question is why use a EDG Datatypes
collection here?
Holger
On 30/05/2019 3:17 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
The project type of the include is a edg:DatatypesProjectType
it is included at creation time of a edg:DataAssetsProjectType,
not in the imported datafile (but it should be able to be
included explicitly IMHO)
and so I mean
OWL (or SHACL) to edg:DatatypesProjectType
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 13:33:03 UTC+10, Holger Knublauch wrote:
On 30/05/2019 1:16 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
We are modelling a system where datatypes themselves are
modelled in OWL, but when referenced from a data asset
collection these models cause import to fail:
v 6.2
File Import Failed
Import Failed. The file declares classes, properties or
shapes which is not supported for this asset collection
type. You should import these into an Ontology. Unsupported
resources found:
This seems to be an over-aggressive enforcement of policy to
separate ontologies from instances -
a) i the check should be applied to the imported data, not
the include closure
So are the datatypes defined in an owl:import of the RDF file
that you are importing?
b) datatypes ought to be allowed to be expressed using OWL
or SHACL models
Could you clarify what you mean? You can imagine there is
quite a cost in trying to support multiple ways of doing the
same thing.
(a canonical SHACL transformation of OWL models into
datatype elements would be a good thing as well! )
Do you mean for example turning owl:withRestrictions into
sh:maxExclusive, such as done by the OWL2SHACL rule set, see
owl2shacl:xsdMaxExclusive2shMaxExclusive?
Holger
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/a9531bad-5aea-432f-8c72-fc8e63eb5308%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/a9531bad-5aea-432f-8c72-fc8e63eb5308%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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] <javascript:>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/5620b6d0-0661-47d0-a591-7122205cec3d%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/5620b6d0-0661-47d0-a591-7122205cec3d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/548e5c51-eb4a-4641-b4b4-c13c238cf0ff%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/548e5c51-eb4a-4641-b4b4-c13c238cf0ff%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/d3ff3b47-6c69-fbe5-a603-0329c73f437d%40topquadrant.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
