date:20210928

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Hi David

Miltos cracked my problem finally based on your example.

1. The shacl issue1 wrt domain is still there but lets forget...lets assume 
domain should be always ontology.

2. Issue2 was never in the sh:declare

3. It was in the prefixes that should have target owl ontology hence base uri 
not name space uri

4. In many examples in spec etc no problem where often base uri == ns uri
5. But not in our case!
6. I used ns uri but should be different base uri including owl fragment etc. 
So i should write full uri like you did...not the prefix only valid for ns uri 
here.

Sigh...thx for your patience as usual, greetings and thx michel/miltos

Op 28 sep. 2021 21:47 schreef David Price :
Hi Michel,

I did the following from your example but following the W3C spec and it works 
fine in Composer:


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sa/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sa" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sainput/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sainput" ;
] ;
.
sainput:MonsterLaag
  a owl:Class ;
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  rdfs:label "MonsterLaag" ;
  sh:rule [
  a sh:SPARQLRule ;
  sh:construct """
   CONSTRUCT {
 ?project rdf:type sa:Project .
   }
   WHERE {
 ?this sainput:projectOmschrijving ?omschrijving .
 BIND (IRI (CONCAT (\"https://w3id.org/sa/def#\;, encode_for_uri 
(?omschrijving))) AS ?project) .
   }
   """ ;
  sh:prefixes  ;
] ;
.


Please see SHACL spec

5.1 An Example SPARQL-based Constraint - see 
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-constraints

and

5.2.1  https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-prefixes

Cheers,
David


On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Wrt your ps

I think it is quite obvious that I mention this issue 1 here since it is so 
much related to the actual tbc issue being issue 2.

Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price 
mailto:dpr...@topquadrant.com>>:
Hi Michel,

I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading 
the W3C spec. I see this in your file:

rdf:
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare is 
the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."

rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.

I expoect rdf: above should instead be


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

Cheers,
David

P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather 
than the TB user forum.


On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better 
formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.

Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)

Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl):

sh:declare
a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:label "declare"@en ;
rdfs:comment "Links a resource with its namespace prefix 
declarations."@en
 ;
rdfs:domain owl:Ontology ;
rdfs:range sh:PrefixDeclaration ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy sh: .

Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) 
(w3.org)):

“ The recommended subject for values 
of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the 
prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of owl:Ontology, but 
this is not required.”


So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually IS 
the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of 
owl:Ontology.

Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)

The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended 
(we assume since that sh name space is used).
But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …

Greetings, Michel

Ps
Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all prefixes 
become of type owl:Ontology…)
In case the declare’s are all attached to sainput: (the graph/ontology-prefix), 
the rule does not result in results.




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.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Hi David
This did not work for me earlier starting the whole issue but i will retry 
again tomorrow.

The spec I know and copied earlier.
The issue is that in that paragraph ...the link you copy below...it says 
"recommended" and "optional" where looking at the rdfs def of sh:declare it is 
much stronger since the domain there specifies owl:Ontology.

So to be consistent the spec should say something like..."the declare shall 
always be for an ontology graph".

Anyway that is a shacl issue indeed...

I will focus first on the second issuelet you know outcome...

Thx michel


Op 28 sep. 2021 21:47 schreef David Price :
Hi Michel,

I did the following from your example but following the W3C spec and it works 
fine in Composer:


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sa/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sa" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sainput/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sainput" ;
] ;
.
sainput:MonsterLaag
  a owl:Class ;
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  rdfs:label "MonsterLaag" ;
  sh:rule [
  a sh:SPARQLRule ;
  sh:construct """
   CONSTRUCT {
 ?project rdf:type sa:Project .
   }
   WHERE {
 ?this sainput:projectOmschrijving ?omschrijving .
 BIND (IRI (CONCAT (\"https://w3id.org/sa/def#\;, encode_for_uri 
(?omschrijving))) AS ?project) .
   }
   """ ;
  sh:prefixes  ;
] ;
.


Please see SHACL spec

5.1 An Example SPARQL-based Constraint - see 
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-constraints

and

5.2.1  https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-prefixes

Cheers,
David


On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Wrt your ps

I think it is quite obvious that I mention this issue 1 here since it is so 
much related to the actual tbc issue being issue 2.

Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price 
mailto:dpr...@topquadrant.com>>:
Hi Michel,

I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading 
the W3C spec. I see this in your file:

rdf:
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare is 
the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."

rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.

I expoect rdf: above should instead be


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

Cheers,
David

P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather 
than the TB user forum.


On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better 
formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.

Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)

Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl):

sh:declare
a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:label "declare"@en ;
rdfs:comment "Links a resource with its namespace prefix 
declarations."@en
 ;
rdfs:domain owl:Ontology ;
rdfs:range sh:PrefixDeclaration ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy sh: .

Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) 
(w3.org)):

“ The recommended subject for values 
of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the 
prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of owl:Ontology, but 
this is not required.”


So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually IS 
the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of 
owl:Ontology.

Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)

The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended 
(we assume since that sh name space is used).
But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …

Greetings, Michel

Ps
Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all prefixes 
become of type owl:Ontology…)
In case the declare’s are all attached to sainput: (the graph/ontology-prefix), 
the rule does not result in results.




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.bo...@tno.nl

Location





This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread David Price

Hi Michel,

I did the following from your example but following the W3C spec and it works 
fine in Composer:


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sa/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sa" ;
] ;
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "https://w3id.org/sainput/def#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "sainput" ;
] ;
.
sainput:MonsterLaag
  a owl:Class ;
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  rdfs:label "MonsterLaag" ;
  sh:rule [
  a sh:SPARQLRule ;
  sh:construct """
   CONSTRUCT {
 ?project rdf:type sa:Project .
   }
   WHERE {
 ?this sainput:projectOmschrijving ?omschrijving .
 BIND (IRI (CONCAT (\"https://w3id.org/sa/def#\;, encode_for_uri 
(?omschrijving))) AS ?project) .
   }
   """ ;
  sh:prefixes  ;
] ;
.


Please see SHACL spec 

5.1 An Example SPARQL-based Constraint - see 
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-constraints 


and

5.2.1  https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-prefixes 


Cheers,
David


> On 28 Sep 2021, at 19:54, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Wrt your ps
> 
> I think it is quite obvious that I mention this issue 1 here since it is so 
> much related to the actual tbc issue being issue 2.
> 
> Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price :
> Hi Michel,
> 
> I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems 
> reading the W3C spec. I see this in your file:
> 
> rdf:
>   sh:declare [
>   sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns 
> #"^^xsd:anyURI ;
>   sh:prefix "rdf" ;
> ] ;
> .
> 
> when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare 
> is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."
> 
> rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.
> 
> I expoect rdf: above should instead be 
> 
> >
>   sh:declare [
>   sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns 
> #"^^xsd:anyURI ;
>   sh:prefix "rdf" ;
> ] ;
> .
> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather 
> than the TB user forum.
> 
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>> mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better 
>> formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.
>>  
>> Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)
>>  
>> Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl 
>> ):
>>  
>> sh:declare
>> a rdf:Property ;
>> rdfs:label "declare"@en ;
>> rdfs:comment "Links a resource with its namespace prefix 
>> declarations."@en 
>> 
>>  ;
>> rdfs:domain owl:Ontology ;
>> rdfs:range sh:PrefixDeclaration ;
>> rdfs:isDefinedBy sh: .
>>  
>> Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) (w3.org) 
>> ):
>>  
>> “ The recommended subject  for 
>> values of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes 
>> that use the prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of 
>> owl:Ontology, but this is not required.”
>>  
>>  
>> So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually 
>> IS the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of 
>> owl:Ontology.
>>  
>> Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)
>>  
>> The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as 
>> recommended (we assume since that sh name space is used).
>> But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …
>>  
>> Greetings, Michel
>>  
>> Ps
>> Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all 
>> prefixes become of type owl:Ontology…)
>> In case the declare’s are all attached to sainput: (the 
>> graph/ontology-prefix), the rule does not result in results.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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.bo...@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

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Wrt your ps

I think it is quite obvious that I mention this issue 1 here since it is so
much related to the actual tbc issue being issue 2.

Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price :
Hi Michel,

I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading
the W3C spec. I see this in your file:

rdf:
sh:declare [
sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare is
the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."

rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.

I expoect rdf: above should instead be

sh:declare [
sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

Cheers,
David

P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather
than the TB user forum.

On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better
formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.

Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)

Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl):

sh:declare
a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:label "declare"@en ;
rdfs:comment "Links a resource with its namespace prefix
declarations."@en
;
rdfs:domain owl:Ontology ;
rdfs:range sh:PrefixDeclaration ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy sh: .

Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)
(w3.org)):

“ The recommended subject for values
of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the
prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of owl:Ontology, but
this is not required.”

So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually IS
the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of
owl:Ontology.

Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)

The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended
(we assume since that sh name space is used).
But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …

Greetings, Michel

Ps
Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all prefixes
become of type owl:Ontology…)
In case the declare’s are all attached to sainput: (the graph/ontology-prefix),
the rule does not result in results.

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.bo...@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/fd20239d403743a8a9aa80d4e96828ef%40tno.nl.

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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3e3294b8-6744-41b9-8586-fc9c2ee04548%40email.android.com.

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Dear David
Please reread our issues.
This is exactly the point in our two subissues.

Issue1...recommended does not mean obliged. It also says optional owl:Ontology
in the spec.
But indeed metalanguage is much stronger ... domain is owl:Ontology...

Issue 2
The file attached delivers rule results
If modelled the strict way...it does not

Thx Michel

Op 28 sep. 2021 19:38 schreef David Price :
Hi Michel,

I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading
the W3C spec. I see this in your file:

rdf:
sh:declare [
sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare is
the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."

rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.

I expoect rdf: above should instead be

sh:declare [
sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

Cheers,
David

P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather
than the TB user forum.

On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better
formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.

Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)

Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl):

Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)
(w3.org)):

So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually IS
the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of
owl:Ontology.

Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)

The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended
(we assume since that sh name space is used).
But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …

Greetings, 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.bo...@tno.nl

Location

UK +44 (0) 7788 561308
US +1 (336) 283-0808‬

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread David Price

Hi Michel,

I did not test anything but it looks to me like you’re having problems reading 
the W3C spec. I see this in your file:

rdf:
  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

when the spec clearly says “The recommended subject for values of sh:declare is 
the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the prefixes."

rdf: graph does not contain any shapes.

I expoect rdf: above should instead be 


  sh:declare [
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
] ;
.

Cheers,
David

P.S. If you have an issue with a W3C spec, please report it to the W3C rather 
than the TB user forum.


> On 28 Sep 2021, at 16:12, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better 
> formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.
>  
> Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)
>  
> Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl 
> ):
>  
> sh:declare
> a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:label "declare"@en ;
> rdfs:comment "Links a resource with its namespace prefix 
> declarations."@en 
> 
>  ;
> rdfs:domain owl:Ontology ;
> rdfs:range sh:PrefixDeclaration ;
> rdfs:isDefinedBy sh: .
>  
> Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) (w3.org) 
> ):
>  
> “ The recommended subject  for 
> values of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that 
> use the prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of 
> owl:Ontology, but this is not required.”
>  
>  
> So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually 
> IS the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of 
> owl:Ontology.
>  
> Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)
>  
> The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended 
> (we assume since that sh name space is used).
> But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work …
>  
> Greetings, Michel
>  
> Ps
> Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all 
> prefixes become of type owl:Ontology…)
> In case the declare’s are all attached to sainput: (the 
> graph/ontology-prefix), the rule does not result in results.
>  
>  
>  
> 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.bo...@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/fd20239d403743a8a9aa80d4e96828ef%40tno.nl
>  
> .
> 

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 topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/B62F7DC9-15DC-4F01-B91D-2D569505A82C%40topquadrant.com.

[topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

2021-09-28 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Together with our partner, BIM-Connected, Miltos Gatzios, we tried to better
formulate the actual issue we see with sh:declare.

Issue 1 (not tbc issue, but general shacl issue)

Metalanguage (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl.ttl):

Specification (Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)
(w3.org)):

" The recommended subject for values
of sh:declare is the IRI of the named graph containing the shapes that use the
prefixes. These IRIs are often declared as an instance of owl:Ontology, but
this is not required."

So the spec is flexible but the metalanguage makes a choice that it actually IS
the named graph using the prefixes AND that it IS at an instance of
owl:Ontology.

Issue 2 (the actual tbc/edg issue)

The implementation in tbc/edg seems to use the more strict way as recommended
(we assume since that sh name space is used).
But that one seems not to work while the flexible way DOES seem to work ...

Greetings, Michel

Ps
Attached the file where the shacl-rule does work (but we think now all prefixes
become of type owl:Ontology...)
In case the declare's are all attached to sainput: (the graph/ontology-prefix),
the rule does not result in results.

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.bo...@tno.nl

Location

[cid:image001.gif@01D7B48C.0D3EF590]

--
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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/fd20239d403743a8a9aa80d4e96828ef%40tno.nl.

sainput.ttl
Description: sainput.ttl

Re: [topbraid-users] Deleting backups in EDG

2021-09-28 Thread Taryn Madey

Hi. Thanks for the report. We are looking into this for EDG 7.1. In the
meantime, you can use S3 lifecycle rules to set retention.

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:29 PM Marcus Jowsey <
marcus.jow...@surroundaustralia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In EDG 7.x, when I backup to S3 bucket it works fine, same for restore.
> The user configured in EDG for access to the S3 backup bucket has
> read/write access to the bucket.
>
> However when I hit the Delete button to delete a backup file I get the
> following error:
>
> Error: Request failed with status code 405
>
> Via the AWS console I'm able to delete manually with the same S3 user.
>
> Is there a S3 sample policy that you can provide or any other advice? This
> "looks like" a bug.
>
> cheers,
> Marcus
>
> --
> 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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/f6a9d249-045e-4ac9-9c8e-23ea74480946n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
Taryn Madey
Development Manager
TopQuadrant Inc.
Raleigh, NC

-- 
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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CAF6qMpr5C-UTv-_8%2B8Tb8E6BgnPMvhUFniPTBe3uVNz7D-WPLw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

[topbraid-users] Better formulated potential sh:declare issues

Re: [topbraid-users] Deleting backups in EDG

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information