> On 6 Apr 2021, at 15:22, Irene Polikoff <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is definitely no problems for a resource to be both a class and a > shape. In fact, this is very convenient and used by TopBraid by default. In > SHACL specification it is discussed as implicit targeting. > > As far as a resource being both a skos:Concept and a class and/or, > potentially even a property - it depends. If people are using these resources > as reference data and will never have instances, then, yes, it is better to > have them as simply concepts, not classes. In this case, they should never > use the SKOS graph with instances together with any of the graphs that define > models. So, there should be no problems. > >> On Apr 6, 2021, at 10:04 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> The case where I regularly see this is if the artefact being defined is >> “master data” or a “reference data library”. If the OWL is really just a >> large hierarchy of classes with annotation properties and no restrictions, >> then I have seen those be published as OWL and as SKOS with the same URIs. >> That does mean you should not mix the two, of course. >> >> Ø Hmmm not mixt: aren they just multiple typed: ie something is a skos >> concept, an rdfs class and a shack shape at the same time…or will that >> result in problems..? >> >>
First, remember that SKOS is an ontology written using OWL - it’s not a language like OWL or SHACL. skos:Concept is itself an OWL class. I’m 99% sure I read that SKOS is OWL Full which is part of why it shouldn’t be mixed with OWL over which you want to run a DL reasoner. We cannot say that mixing will *definitely* result in a problem in all cases since we don’t know what tools are to be used or exactly how they behave, but far safer to keep these things separate if DL reasoning tooling is meant to be enabled. For example, taxonomy-based applications built using SKOS would not typically enable a DL reasoner to be run over the concept hierarchy so mixing is less of a problem in that scenario. That said, reasoning issues could be avoided with sensible partitioning of the graphs containing the various statements so that the user can control whether the DL tool ever sees the skos. Graph partitioning is also an approach some use when they need pure OWL logic statements beyond DL, but can make use of a DL reasoner over a subset of their RDF. Cheers, David > > > -- > 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/31FFC7EA-C74F-4AB3-BEA5-0AEF86C1EAAA%40topquadrant.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/31FFC7EA-C74F-4AB3-BEA5-0AEF86C1EAAA%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/B6CE685A-6339-4B3D-8113-7A4A21839D5A%40topquadrant.com.
