Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?

FYI I have contacted (my former colleague) Matthew Horridge on the OWL 
API/Protege issues and will report back on his findings. As these issues 
appear to be general problems with the handling of RDFS files, I hope 
they can be addressed generically by their implementation. Regardless, 
we may still consider publishing an (alternative) OWL version of the 
SHACL namespace, to optimize the interaction with such tools. We all 
want to lower the barriers of adoption.

Holger


On 11/4/2015 6:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I agree that it is not exactly an OWL problem, but several OWL tools are quite
> expansive in what they can reasonably handle and it seems to me that property
> punning should be easy to handle even without typing statements.  I'm trying
> to see what can be done to improve the tools involved.
>
> I also do not understand the resistance to RDFS so I can't help you there.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 11/03/2015 12:11 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Peter, I actually do not see this as purely a OWL problem, nor do I think that
>> the tools that function well with RDFS and OWL need to change. It would be
>> convenient in many circumstances to have ranges, and perhaps also domains,
>> defined for the properties in SHACL, since both humans and software do
>> frequently make use of that information. Perhaps someone can explain the
>> resistance against this?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 11/3/15 9:04 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> If you ask for
>>> https://github.com/TopQuadrant/shacl/blob/master/src/main/resources/etc/shacl.ttl
>>>
>>> without content negotiation you will get back an HTML document.  If you ask
>>> for this document in text/turtle, you get back a 406 error.  So it is not
>>> surprising that when you try to load the document into Protege there are
>>> complaints.
>>>
>>> If you ask for
>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TopQuadrant/shacl/master/src/main/resources/etc/shacl.ttl
>>>
>>> you get something that can be loaded into Protege.  However, there appears to
>>> be some problem with whatever is converting the document into OWL and the
>>> properties that are also individuals are not being handled nicely.
>>>
>>> Note that the document is not an OWL 2 DL document so the tools that are
>>> loading it are trying to determine what changes are needed to turn it into OWL
>>> 2 DL.  It appears that one of these tools isn't doing something that it seems
>>> would be quite easy.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/03/2015 07:47 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> I am able to load the file into Protege, but not directly from the IRI (which
>>>> gives an error - probably some github thing). I can load a saved version.
>>>> However, that saved version appears to lack all of the properties that are
>>>> listed at the bottom of the ttl file -- and, of course, those are exactly what
>>>> I am hoping to work with to create a SHACL document.
>>>>
>>>> I expected those properties to be treated as OWL annotation properties because
>>>> they do not have domains or ranges defined. (That is what happens to Dublin
>>>> Core 1.1 terms.) Instead, they are simply missing. This is clearly a "feature"
>>>> of the Manchester API, but it seems to be one that could easily be avoided by
>>>> adding ranges to those properties.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/15 10:10 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>> I had tried my latest version from
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/TopQuadrant/shacl/blob/master/src/main/resources/etc/shacl.ttl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Holger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2015 15:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not sure what file you are talking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The SHACL Vocabulary description linked to from the WG Wiki home page is
>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/56429ef268a14e29586244ab944b310ea84cbf46/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The file I get from this location does not have the string
>>>>>> "AbstractResult" in
>>>>>> it at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 08:35 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2015 14:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>> I just loaded the file pointed at from the WG home page into Protege
>>>>>>>> 5.0.0.
>>>>>>>> No problems loading or classifying, but of course there isn't much
>>>>>>>> that an OWL
>>>>>>>> reasoner does with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What part of RDF does the OWL API not support?
>>>>>>> To see some of the problems, re-save the shacl file with Protege.
>>>>>>> Then compare
>>>>>>> it with the original triples. There are all kinds of changes, e.g.
>>>>>>> rdfs:Classes suddenly have become owl:Classes and
>>>>>>> owl:NamedIndividual. Some
>>>>>>> triples seem to have just disappeared (e.g. sh:optionalWhenInherited,
>>>>>>> sh:maxCount at sh:AbstractResult, the sh:constraint at sh:Argument).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See the attached screenshot of an example diff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>> Holger
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 23:07:12 UTC