Hi Irene, David Thx, I had been reading this example about 10 times to understand (indeed allvaluesfrom being “at least” not “only” ).
Another thing I have been chewing on: the simple case and especially the remarks by David wrt RDFS-entailment. My original (very) simple case was: I have two ontologies with different name space and I want to relate concepts from one to the other saying that they are the same. In owl I use owl:equivalentClass and the question was how best in shacl. I like your split in three cases: 1. Inference like in owl now in shacl (like triple construct) 2. Checking like OWL does (although always compromised by CWA nature as you indicated 3. Stronger checking that might be better reflect what you want in CWA fashion: ie allvaluesfrom: “at least” becomes “only”) I am a bit in doubt about option 2, it always seems compromised (?) and chances are that you actually want 3. So I most like the split in choice 1 and 3. Now about the simple case. ex1:ClassX owl:equivalentClass ex2:ClassY (so no restrictions involved) Or even simpler: ex:ClassX owl:equivalentClass ex:ClassY Or even simpler: ex:ClassX rdfs:subClassOf ex:ClassY AND ex:ClassY rdfs:subClassOf ex:ClassX Let’s focus on the first only: ex:ClassX rdfs:subClassOf ex:ClassY Is it true that I could apply your three options here too? (even now that no restrictions apply) like: Option 1: Inference 1a: do nothing in shacl, assume a priori RDFS-entailment 1b: In SHACL AF: tripleconstruct self/rdf:type/ClassY Option 2: SHACL SHAPE: sh:property (path rdf:type, sh:hasValue ex:ClassY) Option 3: SHACL SHAPE: sh:property (path rdf:type, sh:in (ex:ClassY, ...... fixed list, maybe all classes in ont) Do I understand the mails between you and David right that they were about option 1a or 1b? (David: a, you: b) In case of option 1b, 2 and 3: could you then actually delete the rdfs:subClassOf clauses in your shacl code (leaving only rdfs class definitions? Well ...assuming there are similar decisions for rdfs:subPropertyOf). Or is the pure owa treatment/inference with of rdfs:subClassOf always a reason to leave it in anyway? Or....am I talking complete nonsense now 😊 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> [cid:image001.gif@01D6132D.A2B2A100]<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. Van: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <topbraid-users@googlegroups.com> Namens Irene Polikoff Verzonden: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:51 AM Aan: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com Onderwerp: Re: [topbraid-users] equivalence in shacl Actually, I have to correct myself. Because of OWA, you would not get this inference since there is no way to know that all values come from the class person. So, I don’t really know under what circumstances one would use this type of restriction. On Apr 14, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Irene Polikoff <ir...@topquadrant.com<mailto:ir...@topquadrant.com>> wrote: Let’s say your data is just: ex:Alice ex:parent ex:Bob. ex:Bob a ex:Person. Now, with OWL we would get an inference {ex:Alice a ex:Person}. To get this inference in SHACL, you would need something like: ex:PersonRulesShape a sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetSubjectOf ex:parent ; sh:rule [ a sh:TripleRule ; sh:subject sh:this ; sh:predicate rdf:type ; sh:object ex:Person ; ] ; sh:condition ex:HasPersonParentShape. # Rule only applies to subjects of a triple where objects are persons -- 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>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/1C55ABD7-96C4-4797-B34C-E4D62D7E2796%40topquadrant.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/1C55ABD7-96C4-4797-B34C-E4D62D7E2796%40topquadrant.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/0b356c65369349c5a9ddd2d3e0506226%40tno.nl.
