rdfs+shacl issue

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

I now have often:

 

 

 

But I want to be more strict SHACL: RDFS+SHACL only using owl for owl:ontology/owl:import actually.

 

What can happen to the owl:unionOf within sh:class in that case?

 

Can I use some shacl counterpart?

Or if not, do I have to delete this constraint?

 

Thx Michel

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel...@tno.nl Location   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.

 

[Holger Knublauch]

On 26/03/2021 6:55 pm, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users wrote:

I now have often:

 

 

 

But I want to be more strict SHACL: RDFS+SHACL only using owl for owl:ontology/owl:import actually.

 

What can happen to the owl:unionOf within sh:class in that case?

 

Can I use some shacl counterpart?

Or if not, do I have to delete this constraint?

Yes this should be deleted. It was probably created by a conversion from OWL to SHACL, which wasn't aware of bnodes.

Use something like

... sh:property [
    sh:path :hasPart ;
    sh:or (
        [ sh:class :PhysicalObject ]
        [ sh:class rdfs:Container ]
    )
]

which is equivalent/similar to unionOf.

Holger

 

Thx Michel

 

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel...@tno.nl Location   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.

 

--
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/b17aabc432484d1287c5fefa499698d7%40tno.nl.

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

Thx

 

Just checking

 

No counterpoart in rdfs-only, right?

 

So in:

 

nen2660:consistsOf

  a rdf:Property ;

  rdfs:domain [

      a owl:Class ;

      owl:unionOf (

          nen2660:RealObject

          nen2660:Mixture

          nen2660:MatterPortion

        ) ;

    ] ;

 

For rdfs-only variant I can only delete the domain spec, right?

 

thx

 

Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel...@tno.nl Location   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.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/6bf257e4-2502-cca0-32b3-1e5ee2773e83%40topquadrant.com.

[Holger Knublauch]

Correct, RDFS cannot express OWL's union of classes unless you introduce an artificial superclass for the two cases.

Holger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f756cdb0c5754d08a82d377a64415a1c%40tno.nl.