Shacl for disj.unions?

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 1:29:17 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com


Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)

-----Original Message-----
Received: dinsdag, 25 jun. 2019, 19:28

Wil tbc generate shacl for owl disjointunions ?
Thx michel

Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)

 

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.

Irene Polikoff

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 1:36:53 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
No, I do not believe so.

See this http://wiki.topquadrant.com/display/master/Ontology+Utilities#OntologyUtilities-ConvertOWLAxiomstoSHACLConstraints for links to the relevant information: blog covers most of it, but there may have been some changes since it was written and the file in your workspace contains the actual rules - it gives you the info that is most up to date/corresponding to your version.

--
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-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/87b09d3290c94632aaf58da42cc68207%40tno.nl.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

David Price

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 3:47:06 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
I think Holger did do something for disjoint class assertions or maybe it was only for a specific customer? I know he and I worked on it together at some point.

Cheers,
David

Irene Polikoff

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 4:00:25 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
Possibly, which is why I said that the most up to date documentation of what is being converted is in the file itself.

It has wl2shacl:owlDisjointWith2NotClass

Michel could check its logic to see if it does what he needs.

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 5:04:35 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
Thx
I will check!

Holger Knublauch

unread,
Jun 25, 2019, 6:44:50 PM6/25/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

The current answer is no, owl:disjointUnionOf is not supported. I haven't seen enough use cases of it. The more traditional owl:disjointWith is supported by the converter.

Holger

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Jun 26, 2019, 3:40:16 AM6/26/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

 

Ok, thx Holger.

 

Any tips of best manual translation would be great.

 

The owl would be:

 

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Document">

    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en-GB">Document</rdfs:label>

    <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-GB">abstract class for references to a document; an individual shall at least be member of ct:ExternalDocument or ct:InternalDocument; and optionally, individuals can be a member of other subtypes of ct:Document such as ct:SecuredDocument and/or ct:EncryptedDocument</rdfs:comment>

    <owl:disjointUnionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">

      <owl:Class rdf:ID="ExternalDocument"/>

      <owl:Class rdf:ID="InternalDocument"/>

    </owl:disjointUnionOf>

  </owl:Class>

 

Guess some sh:node sh:or sh:node shape patern but how to indicate completeness?

 

Thx !

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 

dprice

unread,
Jun 26, 2019, 6:53:53 AM6/26/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

On 26 Jun 2019, at 08:40, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 
Ok, thx Holger.
 
Any tips of best manual translation would be great.
 
The owl would be:
 
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Document">
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en-GB">Document</rdfs:label>
    <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-GB">abstract class for references to a document; an individual shall at least be member of ct:ExternalDocument or ct:InternalDocument; and optionally, individuals can be a member of other subtypes of ct:Document such as ct:SecuredDocument and/or ct:EncryptedDocument</rdfs:comment>
    <owl:disjointUnionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
      <owl:Class rdf:ID="ExternalDocument"/>
      <owl:Class rdf:ID="InternalDocument"/>
    </owl:disjointUnionOf>
  </owl:Class>
 
Guess some sh:node sh:or sh:node shape patern but how to indicate completeness?

sh:in on rdf:type should do the trick I would think.


Cheers,
David

 
Thx !
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bohms, H.M. (Michel)

unread,
Jun 27, 2019, 5:21:31 AM6/27/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

I interpret the disjointUnion as:

Say X = A B C

 

  • A B and C are mutually disjunct
  • X is in A or B or C
  • There is no D

 

In that case sh:in seems only address the second bullit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 

dprice

unread,
Jun 27, 2019, 5:31:45 AM6/27/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com

On 27 Jun 2019, at 10:21, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I interpret the disjointUnion as:
Say X = A B C
 
  • A B and C are mutually disjunct
  • X is in A or B or C
  • There is no D
 
In that case sh:in seems only address the second bullit?

Yes, combine that with coding logic like for the the existing disjoint support and you have the problem solved.

Cheers,
David


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Irene Polikoff

unread,
Jun 27, 2019, 6:26:28 AM6/27/19
to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
You need to do a separate shape disjointness. Check out the way it is addressed in the file I referenced.

I assume that by X you mean some resource that is a member of the class defined in the union.

sh:in does both, 2 and 3. If any X must be in either A, B or C, then there is no D such that X could belong to it and pass validation while not belonging to either A, B or C.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2019, at 5:21 AM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users <topbrai...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I interpret the disjointUnion as:

Say X = A B C

 

  • A B and C are mutually disjunct
  • X is in A or B or C
  • There is no D

 

In that case sh:in seems only address the second bullit?

 

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms
Senior Data Scientist

T +31888663107
M +31630381220
E michel...@tno.nl

Location

 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages