Thanks, Hogler! I've revised the code accordingly, however, when I "Run Inference" against the instance of "Patient", still nothing returned. I am wondering whether that's because I should write a GraphQL/SPARQL query for inference? I've read the slides provided by Irene, very helpful, thank you! But it only provided examples for the EDG version. It did provide example for GraphQL query, but I am using SHACL file right now, and I think it only contains the SPARQL query function.
在 2020年6月29日星期一 UTC-5下午10:54:59，Holger Knublauch写道： > > Oh I guess I made a copy and paste mistake. Change the line to sh:object > p3point_validation:Melanoma because that's the rdf:type you want to infer? > > Holger > > > On 30/06/2020 13:53, Emily Zhang wrote: > > Thank for the quick reply, Holger! It make sense that I should define the > rule under Patient class. However, how can I link the rule to "Melanoma" > since its the the instance of patient should be inferred as? Should I > define the "melanoma" as the sh:node under sh:filtershape? > Thanks again, > Emily > > 在 2020年6月29日星期一 UTC-5下午10:30:58，Holger Knublauch写道： >> >> Hi Emily, >> >> the definition below doesn't look correct: you can only use sh:values >> rules in a property shape, not in a class or node shape. Also, any such >> rule would need to be attached to the class Patient because you want to >> apply it to all instances of that class to infer an additional triple. It >> may work better if you have something like >> >> :Patient >> sh:rule [ >> a sh:TripleRule ; >> sh:subject sh:this; >> sh:predicate rdf:type ; >> sh:object p3point_validation:Patient ; >> sh:condition [ >> # your sh:filterShape, i.e. start with sh:property >> sh:property [ >> >> sh:path p3point_validation:point_dermfeatures ; >> >> sh:in ( >> >> p3point_validation:Atypical >> >> p3point_validation:Asymmetry >> >> p3point_validation:Blue_white_structure >> >> ) ; >> >> sh:maxCount 3 ; # Are those constraints really needed? >> >> sh:minCount 2 ; >> >> ] ; >> ] >> ] >> HTH >> Holger >> >> >> On 30/06/2020 13:14, Emily Zhang wrote: >> >> Thanks so much for the detailed reply! I actually found out that sh:in >> might be a better choice for me. >> To give a summary of my question: >> It's a inference question that all the instances of "Patient" who has the >> property of "3point_dermfeatures" that satisfy the constrain: (a): their >> features are within the range of "Atypical, Asymmetry, >> blue_white_structure"; (b): the number of all the features are in the range >> [2,3]; should be inferred to as having the disease of "Melanoma". >> However, when I tried to "Run Inferences" for the instance of "Patient", >> nothing returned. Do you think it has something to do with my source code? >> Here is the source code I've edited according to to tutorial. >> >> p3point_validation:Melanoma >> >> rdf:type owl:Class ; >> >> rdf:type sh:NodeShape ; >> >> rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing ; >> >> sh:values [ >> >> sh:filterShape [ >> >> sh:property [ >> >> sh:path p3point_validation:point_dermfeatures ; >> >> sh:in ( >> >> p3point_validation:Atypical >> >> p3point_validation:Asymmetry >> >> p3point_validation:Blue_white_structure >> >> ) ; >> >> sh:maxCount 3 ; >> >> sh:minCount 2 ; >> >> ] ; >> >> ] ; >> >> sh:nodes [ >> >> sh:path p3point_validation:Patient ; >> >> ] ; >> >> ] ; >> >> . >> >> 在 2020年6月29日星期一 UTC-5下午7:04:49，Irene Polikoff写道： >>> >>> Hi Emily, >>> >>> I am not sure I understand the question. OWL is OWL and SHACL is SHACL. >>> They are different languages with different semantics. OWL is based on the >>> Open World Assumption and SHACL is not. >>> >>> You can combine OWL axioms and SHACL constraints and rules in the same >>> RDF graph if this is what you mean by “using together”. >>> >>> There are similarities between SHACL and OWL and you can find constraint >>> components in SHACL that are similar to certain OWL restrictions. If your >>> question is “what in SHACL would be similar to the OWL allValue>From and >>> someValuesFrom restrictions", then: >>> >>> For allValuesFrom, if values are resources, use sh:class - this means >>> that all values must be members of the specified class. If values are >>> literals, use sh:datatype. >>> >>> OWL someValuesFrom is simply a short hand for a qualified cardinality >>> restriction with min = 1. In other words, at least one value must satisfy >>> the restriction, others could be different. In SHACL, you could use >>> qualified value shapes for something similar to the qualified cardinality >>> restrictions. See >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#QualifiedValueShapeConstraintComponent. >>> >>> There is no short hand for someValuesFrom in the spec, we we have >>> defined dash:hasValueWithClass in the dash (http://datashapes.org/dash) >>> namespace. You can find it at http://datashapes.org/dash.ttl and some >>> documentation at http://datashapes.org/dash. >>> >>> You can also take a look at the mapping from OWL to SHACL that is used >>> by TopBraid to auto-generate SHACL from RDFS/OWL. It is described in >>> https://www.topquadrant.com/from-owl-to-shacl-in-an-automated-way/. For >>> the most up to date version of the rules, see the file in the workspace. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Irene >>> >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 6:47 PM, Emily Zhang <zxy10...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Irene, >>> Just wondering if I can use SHACL and the OWL function "allvaluesfrom" >>> or "somevaluesfrom" together? I do see there is "hasvalue" function >>> embedded in the SHACL file, however, I didn't find the other two functions. >>> Thanks, >>> Emily >>> >>> -- >>> 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 topbrai...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/89d3bec0-016d-4696-80a0-73fa467cdf98o%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/89d3bec0-016d-4696-80a0-73fa467cdf98o%40googlegroups.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 topbrai...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/300044d2-bec1-49a5-85d2-c2de44bfd74fo%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/300044d2-bec1-49a5-85d2-c2de44bfd74fo%40googlegroups.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 topbrai...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/d5d89d89-0fb2-4af6-883d-a453c5f6257do%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/d5d89d89-0fb2-4af6-883d-a453c5f6257do%40googlegroups.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/49c2c4eb-85dc-4009-b52d-a4c73a3e2e74o%40googlegroups.com.
