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
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
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 vali
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,
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 propert
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 "ha
