One reason would be that there is no standard CWA-interpretation of RDFS/OWL. Such semantics is not defined. Of course, one could decide how it should work, but it would be their own decision or a decision of a vendor who has such “switch capability”..
With two different interpretation of the same knowledge representation, people and systems would need to have a way to communicate to each other what exactly they meant in making model’s statements. They would not be able to simply count on the shared semantics anymore. SHACL Core is indeed more powerful than OWL. For example, you can use regex. You can compare property values (e.g., start and end) which is not possible with OWL. Even with things that are also possible with OWL, they are easily done with SHACL. For example, min and max values, you can do them with OWL by creating custom datatypes. However, this requires a lot of modeling to create such a thing every time you need to say less than 10, for example. With SHACL it is much simpler. SHACL has better support for re-use of general ontologies - with the ability to deactivate shapes. SHACL has some support for the UI generation. With OWL, everything is class-base. In other words, you can’t make any statements about a specific resource or about a group of resources (such as those that have a date of birth) without creating s class. This may make ontologies unnecessarily complex. SHACL offers rich targetting. Further, SHACL is an extensible language. You can define constraints over and above Core using SHACL SPARQL and your own constraint components. And, yes, there is support for Rules. > On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:43 PM, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users > <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > When trying to promote shacl we typically run into the question: > > Why can’t we just use OWL with CWA-interpretation (incl. non-UNA)? > > Some reasoners even have a “switch”. > > We then say: > Shacl (core) is more powerful > Shacl will later (when?) cover shacl-af for rules, so inline/prepared. > Switch might be system-dependent (is that so?) > > Does anyone has more convincing/compelling arguments for me? > > Thx a lot, > Michel > > > > > Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms > Senior Data Scientist > > T +31888663107 > M +31630381220 > E michel.bo...@tno.nl <mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl> > Location > <https://www.google.com/maps/place/TNO+-+Locatie+Delft+-+Stieltjesweg/@52.000788,4.3745183,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c5b58c52869997:0x56681566be3b8c88!8m2!3d52.000788!4d4.376707> > > > <image001.gif> <http://www.tno.nl/> > 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 > <mailto:topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
