date:20231110

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Hi holger, david

See all your points.
Wished decomposition was better incorporated in our modelling languages, like
in uml eg.

Specializing properties like hasEngine is a solution but you loose the actual
decomposition semantics or you have to assume it in the "has" of "hasX" but
typically "has" is also used for attributes or nonpart relations.

Anyway, thx for your views
Michel

Op 10 nov. 2023 13:21 schreef David Price :
Following on from Holger’s comment …

Typical” and “relevance” are not generally supported modeling concepts in
RDF-land. “possible" and “cardinality" are basically it.

Min 0 just means optional and is therefore ignored by every rdf-based engine I
know.

I guess in SHACL you could make a property shape that did a SPARQL NOT EXISTS
and report an sh:Warning or sh:Info rather than a sh:Violation. But users might
get tired of seeing the warnings repeatedly.

If you need to communicate “typical” to humans, then the documentation is a
much better place. If I see “min 0” in a data model, I usually assume it’s a
mistake and so would probably not understand the intent.

Cheers,
David

On 10 Nov 2023, at 12:20, Holger Knublauch wrote:

In almost all cases that I have seen, qualified value constraints are a pain to
work with, either in OWL or SHACL. I have no recommendations for them as I
almost never use them. I would just introduce a property :hasEngine and get rid
of :hasPart.

Holger

On 10 Nov 2023, at 1:09 pm, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
wrote:

Ok, thx

So there is also no better way to model that y and z are typical (can be) parts
of x where say r and s are not.
Like kind of qualified closure like sh:closed is on property level
Michel

Op 10 nov. 2023 12:08 schreef Holger Knublauch :
In both cases the constraint isn't doing any validation at all, so you can
leave the sh:qualifiedMinCount out, if you only intend to use it to indicate
relevance.

Holger

On 10 Nov 2023, at 10:23 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
wrote:

I have a qualified constraint question.

To define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:

:Vehicle
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf [
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
owl:onClass :Engine ;
owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
] .

We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an
obligatory part).
(because we cannot leave the restriction out).

Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?

:VehicleShape
a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
sh:property [
sh:path :hasPart ;
sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
sh:qualifiedValueShape [
sh:class :Engine ;
] ;
sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
.

Or can I delete the red now?

Similar (example not for decomposition):

sh:property [ sh:path
https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
sh:qualifiedValueShape [ sh:class
https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
] .

Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?

Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint where
the valueshape is ‘just’ the context when to be applied, right?

So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate
this “relevance”?

Thx a lot, Michel

Michel Böhms
Data Scientist

Mobile +31 630381220
E-mail 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.

--
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to
topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl.

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread David Price

Following on from Holger’s comment …

Typical” and “relevance” are not generally supported modeling concepts in 
RDF-land. “possible" and “cardinality" are basically it.

Min 0 just means optional and is therefore ignored by every rdf-based engine I 
know.

I guess in SHACL you could make a property shape that did a SPARQL NOT EXISTS 
and report an sh:Warning or sh:Info rather than a sh:Violation. But users might 
get tired of seeing the warnings repeatedly.

If you need to communicate “typical” to humans, then the documentation is a 
much better place. If I see “min 0” in a data model, I usually assume it’s a 
mistake and so would probably not understand the intent.

Cheers,
David

> On 10 Nov 2023, at 12:20, Holger Knublauch  wrote:
> 
> In almost all cases that I have seen, qualified value constraints are a pain 
> to work with, either in OWL or SHACL. I have no recommendations for them as I 
> almost never use them. I would just introduce a property :hasEngine and get 
> rid of :hasPart.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
>> On 10 Nov 2023, at 1:09 pm, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Ok, thx
>> 
>> So there is also no better way to model that y and z are typical (can be) 
>> parts of x where say r and s are not.
>> Like kind of qualified closure like sh:closed is on property level
>> Michel
>> 
>> Op 10 nov. 2023 12:08 schreef Holger Knublauch :
>> In both cases the constraint isn't doing any validation at all, so you can 
>> leave the sh:qualifiedMinCount out, if you only intend to use it to indicate 
>> relevance.
>> 
>> Holger
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 Nov 2023, at 10:23 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I have a qualified constraint question.
>>  
>> To  define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:
>>  
>> :Vehicle
>>   a owl:Class ;
>>   rdfs:subClassOf [
>>   a owl:Restriction ;
>>   owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
>>   owl:onClass :Engine ;
>>   owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
>> ] .
>>  
>> We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an 
>> obligatory part).
>> (because we cannot leave the restriction out).
>>  
>> Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?
>>  
>> :VehicleShape
>>   a sh:NodeShape ;
>>   sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
>>   sh:property [
>> sh:path :hasPart ;
>> sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
>> sh:qualifiedValueShape [
>> sh:class :Engine ;
>>] ;
>>sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
>> .
>>  
>> Or can I delete the red now?
>>  
>> Similar (example not for decomposition):
>>  
>> sh:property  [ sh:path 
>> https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
>>sh:qualifiedValueShape  [ sh:class  
>> https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
>>  ] .
>>  
>> Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?
>>  
>> Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint 
>> where the valueshape is ‘just’ the context when to be applied, right?
>>  
>> So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate 
>> this “relevance”?
>>  
>> Thx a lot, Michel
>>  
>>  
>> Michel Böhms
>> Data Scientist
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Mobile +31 630381220
>> E-mail  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.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related 
>> technologies such as SHACL.
>> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl
>>  
>> .
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related 
>> technologies such as SHACL.
>> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread Holger Knublauch

In almost all cases that I have seen, qualified value constraints are a pain to 
work with, either in OWL or SHACL. I have no recommendations for them as I 
almost never use them. I would just introduce a property :hasEngine and get rid 
of :hasPart.

Holger


> On 10 Nov 2023, at 1:09 pm, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ok, thx
> 
> So there is also no better way to model that y and z are typical (can be) 
> parts of x where say r and s are not.
> Like kind of qualified closure like sh:closed is on property level
> Michel
> 
> Op 10 nov. 2023 12:08 schreef Holger Knublauch :
> In both cases the constraint isn't doing any validation at all, so you can 
> leave the sh:qualifiedMinCount out, if you only intend to use it to indicate 
> relevance.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 10 Nov 2023, at 10:23 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a qualified constraint question.
>  
> To  define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:
>  
> :Vehicle
>   a owl:Class ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf [
>   a owl:Restriction ;
>   owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
>   owl:onClass :Engine ;
>   owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
> ] .
>  
> We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an 
> obligatory part).
> (because we cannot leave the restriction out).
>  
> Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?
>  
> :VehicleShape
>   a sh:NodeShape ;
>   sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
>   sh:property [
> sh:path :hasPart ;
> sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
> sh:qualifiedValueShape [
> sh:class :Engine ;
>] ;
>sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
> .
>  
> Or can I delete the red now?
>  
> Similar (example not for decomposition):
>  
> sh:property  [ sh:path 
> https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
>sh:qualifiedValueShape  [ sh:class  
> https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
>  ] .
>  
> Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?
>  
> Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint 
> where the valueshape is ‘just’ the context when to be applied, right?
>  
> So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate 
> this “relevance”?
>  
> Thx a lot, Michel
>  
>  
> Michel Böhms
> Data Scientist
>  
> 
> 
> Mobile +31 630381220
> E-mail  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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
> such as SHACL.
> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl
>  
> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
> such as SHACL.
> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7D5006D9-9F88-4482-A825-EF3EB4B0B7F2%40topquadrant.com
>  
> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
> such as SHACL.
> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

Ok, thx

So there is also no better way to model that y and z are typical (can be) parts 
of x where say r and s are not.
Like kind of qualified closure like sh:closed is on property level
Michel

Op 10 nov. 2023 12:08 schreef Holger Knublauch :
In both cases the constraint isn't doing any validation at all, so you can 
leave the sh:qualifiedMinCount out, if you only intend to use it to indicate 
relevance.

Holger


On 10 Nov 2023, at 10:23 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
 wrote:

I have a qualified constraint question.

To  define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:

:Vehicle
  a owl:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf [
  a owl:Restriction ;
  owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
  owl:onClass :Engine ;
  owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
] .

We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an 
obligatory part).
(because we cannot leave the restriction out).

Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?

:VehicleShape
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
  sh:property [
sh:path :hasPart ;
sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
sh:qualifiedValueShape [
sh:class :Engine ;
   ] ;
   sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
.

Or can I delete the red now?

Similar (example not for decomposition):

sh:property  [ sh:path 
https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
   sh:qualifiedValueShape  [ sh:class  
https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
 ] .

Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?

Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint where 
the valueshape is ‘just’ the context when to be applied, right?

So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate 
this “relevance”?

Thx a lot, Michel



Michel Böhms
Data Scientist




Mobile +31 630381220
E-mail  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.








--
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to 
topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl.


--
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7D5006D9-9F88-4482-A825-EF3EB4B0B7F2%40topquadrant.com.

-- 
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/b5380627-e2e2-4a25-a985-9a27f54149aa%40email.android.com.

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread Holger Knublauch

In both cases the constraint isn't doing any validation at all, so you can 
leave the sh:qualifiedMinCount out, if you only intend to use it to indicate 
relevance.

Holger


> On 10 Nov 2023, at 10:23 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a qualified constraint question.
>  
> To  define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:
>  
> :Vehicle
>   a owl:Class ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf [
>   a owl:Restriction ;
>   owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
>   owl:onClass :Engine ;
>   owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
> ] .
>  
> We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an 
> obligatory part).
> (because we cannot leave the restriction out).
>  
> Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?
>  
> :VehicleShape
>   a sh:NodeShape ;
>   sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
>   sh:property [
> sh:path :hasPart ;
> sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
> sh:qualifiedValueShape [
> sh:class :Engine ;
>] ;
>sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
> .
>  
> Or can I delete the red now?
>  
> Similar (example not for decomposition):
>  
> sh:property  [ sh:path 
> https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
>sh:qualifiedValueShape  [ sh:class  
> https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
>  ] .
>  
> Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?
>  
> Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint 
> where the valueshape is ‘just’ the context when to be applied, right?
>  
> So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate 
> this “relevance”?
>  
> Thx a lot, Michel
>  
>  
> Michel Böhms
> Data Scientist
>  
> 
> 
> Mobile +31 630381220
> E-mail  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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
> such as SHACL.
> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl
>  
> .

-- 
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7D5006D9-9F88-4482-A825-EF3EB4B0B7F2%40topquadrant.com.

[topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

2023-11-10 Thread 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users

I have a qualified constraint question.

To  define a meronomy (typical hasPart hierarchy) we now use in OWA/OWL:

:Vehicle
  a owl:Class ;
  rdfs:subClassOf [
  a owl:Restriction ;
  owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
  owl:onClass :Engine ;
  owl:onProperty :hasPart ;
] .

We explicitly model this mincard=0 to indicate relevance (it is not an 
obligatory part).
(because we cannot leave the restriction out).

Now my question how does this translate into cwa/shacl?

:VehicleShape
  a sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:targetClass :Vehicle ;
  sh:property [
sh:path :hasPart ;
sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
sh:qualifiedValueShape [
sh:class :Engine ;
   ] ;
   sh:qualifiedMinCount 0 ;
.

Or can I delete the red now?

Similar (example not for decomposition):

sh:property  [ sh:path 
https://w3id.org/nen2660/def#hasInterior ;
   sh:qualifiedValueShape  [ sh:class  
https://otl.waternet.nl/def/cff9206f-72ae-4eb8-a671-9c3dd73b62c0 ]
 ] .

Is it ok to leave minCard/maxCard out?

Personally I guess NOT since I always have to give the actual constraint where 
the valueshape is 'just' the context when to be applied, right?

So I put in minCar = 0 again or is there in shape a smarter way to indicate 
this "relevance"?

Thx a lot, Michel



Michel Böhms
Data Scientist

[cid:image001.png@01DA13BA.3607DA20]


Mobile +31 630381220
E-mail  michel.bo...@tno.nl

Location



[cid:image002.gif@01DA13BF.EA8559A0]

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.







-- 
The topics of this mailing list include TopBraid EDG and related technologies 
such as SHACL.
To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@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-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8f1ba4e23ebe4932bcaff5319933f7d1%40tno.nl.

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

Re: [topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

[topbraid-users] question wrt qualified constraint

6 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information