Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

On 2021-09-22 11:52 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: I think I get your point about focus node and value node, and i will wrap my head around that. Weird that there is no one example that show that type of construction ex:X a sh:NodeShape ; sh:datatype xsd:string ; But for the little i just

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

I think I get your point about focus node and value node, and i will wrap my head around that. Weird that there is no one example that show that type of construction ex:X a sh:NodeShape ; sh:datatype xsd:string ; But for the little i just understood, this means that the two are equivalent ?

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

Modified below Holger On 2021-09-22 11:31 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: Before, i go back and do my due diligence, Would be able to expand that into its full form, i mean representing explicitly the NodeShape ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ;  sh:property [

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

Before, i go back and do my due diligence, Would be able to expand that into its full form, i mean representing explicitly the NodeShape ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ; sh:property [//shprop1 sh:path

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

I guess one way that would help me to easily answer this, is, someone could help fully expand the example, i.e. without any shortcut or abbreviation Does ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ; sh:property [

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

On 2021-09-22 11:01 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: I assumed that in my example that the list is made up of blank Property Shape? am i correct ? ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ;  sh:property [   //shprop1    sh:path ex:address ;    sh:or (                [      

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

I assumed that in my example that the list is made up of blank Property Shape? am i correct ? ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ; sh:property [//shprop1 sh:path ex:address ; sh:or ( [

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

>>> No, not rdfs:subClassOf. This is just talking about shapes. But it would be equivalent to using ex:ExampleAndShape sh:node ex:SuperShape ; In general, sh:and is not needed and can be substituted with multiple sh:node constraints, or sh:property. >>> This is clear, thank you. and yes

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

Just to conclude and be complete about my last question, which is all that sparked the original question actually: *(Note: I'm using rdfs:subclassOf informally here, just to express the idea)* When we have ``` ex:PersonAddressShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Person ;

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

On 2021-09-22 10:35 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: 1 - Does that mean  that fundamentally, the list of shape in an sh:Or or sh:And is heterogenous ? That is, it may contain both propertyShape and NodeShape at the same time ? Yes, may contain any shape. 2 - This bring me to  the question of  how

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

1 - Does that mean that fundamentally, the list of shape in an sh:Or or sh:And is heterogenous ? That is, it may contain both propertyShape and NodeShape at the same time ? 2 - This bring me to the question of how to read this ? ex:ExampleAndShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetNode

Re: [topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

On 2021-09-22 9:54 am, Maatary Okouya wrote: Taken from the specification: >>> A node shape is a shape  in the shapes graph  that is not the subject  of a triple

[topbraid-users] Is something missing in the shacl spec or just confusing or an error ?

Taken from the specification: >>> A node shape is a shape in the shapes graph that is not the subject of a triple

[topbraid-users] Re: mu

> zanddriehoek_180_µm_63_µm Here it is µ == U+00B5 (Micro sign) which is not the same as U+03BC (Greek mu). Greek mu is allowed in prefix names. Micro sign is not in the allowed characters. Andy On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 16:28:49 UTC+1 Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > I noticed

RE: [topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

Thx I’ll investigate also! (it’ s just that our inputs are already that simple (generated/recognized from PDFs…) standard sheets that drove me towards the 2 step approach since step 1 provides such a nice onthefly semantic counterpart of the xlsx…) Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist

Re: [topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

Just want to comment that the active data shape is my default approach for data import now. So much flexibility. On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7:08:08 AM UTC-4 Irene Polikoff wrote: > If you need to script a custom importer for EDG, here is the way to do it: > > >

Re: [topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

If you need to script a custom importer for EDG, here is the way to do it: https://www.topquadrant.com/project/importing-data-using-active-data-shapes/ https://datashapes.org/active/import.html#spreadsheets Once you script it, you can use it repeatedly. The custom import can become a part of

RE: [topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

A second approach is to make it two steps in EDG, and it sounds like you’ve done the first. For the second, it’s probably simpler to make another graph based on the more complex ontology as the target and write SHACL Rules (i.e. sh:SPARQLRule) which you can include into the target traph to be

Re: [topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

Hi Michel, The spreadsheet importers that are simple and out-of-the-box support a table-maps-to-single class scenario. If you have a more complex ontology and data about multiple classes in the same spreadsheet table, then you are writing a bespoke importer rather than an EDG Import

[topbraid-users] enriching the semantic table

When I have read in a semantic excel into TBC/EDG I want to convert it to a more structured ontology (ie normalize it) via sparql construct queries. In a sense I am splitting the big nonnormalized table into multiple tables. In this process I have to (I assume) create IDs for individuals that