W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2016

SHACL SKOS library Re: S36 implementation details

From: Osma Suominen <osma.suominen@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:01:08 +0200
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <569F4CD4.7040406@helsinki.fi>
It was even released by Holger Knublauch on the SHACL mailing list:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0115.html

-Osma


20.01.2016, 10:46, Osma Suominen wrote:
> Hi Antoine!
>
> I just noticed this item in the TopBraid 5.1.0 release notes [1]:
>
> - Feature: Added SHACL library for SKOS constraints.
>
> So apparently SHACL rules for SKOS constraints have already been
> developed (by TopQuadrant I assume). Which is maybe not a big surprise,
> since they've had SPIN rules for SKOS for quite some time and SHACL is
> in some ways a successor of SPIN (with TopQuadrant represented in the
> SHACL WG) and SKOS ICs were also one of the initial use cases for SHACL
> [2].
>
> -Osma
>
> [1] http://www.topquadrant.com/docs/versions/changes-5.1.txt
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/#uc21-skos-constraints
>
>
>
> 18.01.2016, 09:32, Antoine Isaac kirjoitti:
>> Thanks a lot, Osma!
>> This is really good to have.
>> And in a way confirms the interest of wait-and-seeing until we can start
>> playing with SHACL / RDF Shapes (arguably closer to SPIN).
>>
>> To come back to Simon's comment. Yes OWL2 is good, but having an OWL1
>> representation already allows to use SKOS in OWL2 context (i.e. it
>> specifies which classes and properties are in the SKOS vocabulary). What
>> we're missing then is a handful of contraints from the SKOS model, which
>> OWL2 may anyway not allow one to capture in the way most people would
>> need them (i.e. in a 'closed-world' manner).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> On 1/18/16 8:18 AM, Osma Suominen wrote:
>>> On 17/01/16 12:29, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>> I'm actually a bit surprised I couldn't find a trace of an earlier
>>>> attempt...
>>>
>>> Are you perhaps referring to Paul Hermans' series of blog posts from
>>> 2010 where he attempted to express some of the SKOS ICs using OWL2 and
>>> SPIN? His conclusion at the time was that most of them couldn't be
>>> represented in OWL2.
>>>
>>> The blog is long gone now but the posts are still available thanks to
>>> the Internet Archive:
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20130522054521/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/aaad2/Integrity_constraints_in_SKOS_part_1_.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20130522051358/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/55d41/Integrity_constraints_in_SKOS_part_2.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20130522044951/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/bfa21/Integrity_Constraints_in_SKOS_part_3.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20130522033512/http://www.proxml.be/users/paul/weblog/0a621/SKOS_part_4_property_chains.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is also some commentary on the topic on Holger Knublauch's blog
>>> (obviously promoting SPIN):
>>>
>>> http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-owl-fails.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Osma
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Osma Suominen
D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
National Library of Finland
P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
Tel. +358 50 3199529
osma.suominen@helsinki.fi
http://www.nationallibrary.fi
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 09:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:48 UTC