That in itself does not necessarily require SHACL SPARQL.
Instead, a complex path could be used -
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#property-path-zero-or-more
<https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#property-path-zero-or-more>.e.g., a path such as
^rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*
smls:InformationObject-invType
a sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:path (
[
sh:inversePath rdf:type ;
]
[
sh:zeroOrMorePath rdfs:subClassOf ;
]
) ;
sh:hasValue smls:InformationObject ;
Throw in sh:not for this particular case to say that a smls:PhysicalObject
can’t conform to this. Also, sh:or to cover other classes.
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 8:44 AM, David Price <dpr...@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> The complication in the general case is that you cannot just look at
> rdf:type(s) of the individual, you have to search up the superclasses to
> check for the class stated in the owl:disjointWith statement.
--
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/E0526AA2-DCC7-4111-BC56-263F1C9A1856%40topquadrant.com.
