shacl validation errors

[Michel Böhms]

I experiment in the context of digital product passports with a very specific (?exotic) way of modelling in RDFS/SHACL involving 4 meta layers:

• generics - parametric products
• specifics - instances (configurations of product, fully determined)
• individual - specifics having a placement (location/orientation), ...you an point at those
• occurrences -  individual states in time

There are many, many ways to model this and i am investigating a way that I think would be theoretically preferred: via 3x instantiation (rdf:type).

I made an example that is fine syntactically  and reads into TBC (version 7.1.1 on windows). No errors in log. So my exotic model seems accepted.

However at shacl validation I get some issues even an exception (screenshot).

An tip is very much appreciated.

I think personally it should work somehow but I also know tools might have problems with multiple meta-levels (3 let alone 4...).

Thanks, Michel Bohms, TNO, NL

ps

sml file is import for experiment, not essential, just top level model incl. way to model Enumerated types.

[David Price]

Hi,

SHACL assumes a Shapes Graph and a Data Graph and validation is the Data Graph conformance to the Shapes Graph.

You cannot mix these together in 4 layers of meta-ness and have SHACL work properly in a single named graph.

What you can do is partition up the named graphs so there is always a 2-layer Shapes graph + Data graph used for validation.

I think you actually have to generate the Shapes for layer N-1 from the Data in layer N (hope that makes sense).

This I learned when playing around with ISO 15926 4-D ontologies a long time ago but never put into practice, so take it as a hypothesis to try out.

So … “ I also know tools might have problems with multiple meta-levels (3 let alone 4...).” is indeed something to worry about. 

RDF is fine as a transport means, for example, if the use case is data exchange. 

RDFS but class as member of class may give some tools trouble.

OWL can do a bit more with puning so meta-class ok, but that’s it.

SHACL — 2-layers AFAIK.

Cheers,

David

--
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to topbrai...@googlegroups.com
---
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/bd339f82-b679-49e1-9030-858d10354a18n%40googlegroups.com.
<sml2-rdfs.ttl><bm22-sml-example-rdfs.ttl><Screenshot 2026-02-26 144339.jpg>

David Price, Semantic Solution Architect

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308

TopQuadrant.com

[Bohms, H.M. (Michel)]

Hi David, I’ll experiment…..(with the 2-level partitioning)

 

The actual exception thrown had to to with the sh:in I guess (changed it into sh:class and it disappeared…

 

Thx michel

 

Dr.ir. H.M. Böhms (Michel) Strategic advisor digitalisation Mobility & Built Environment Web:     LinkedIn Mobile: +31630381220 E-mail:  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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3AABB26E-1096-4653-B553-8DA50908BDCB%40topquadrant.com.