- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:32:49 +1000
- To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Just saw this thread by accident... Note that the SKOS file (bundled with TopBraid 5.1 under TopBraid/SKOS/skos.shapes.ttl) is a bit outdated: since I created it, SHACL was extended with various built-ins that make the syntax a bit easier to digest (for example sh:uniqueLang=true is now built-in and disjointness can be expressed via sh:notEquals). So please regard this particular version of the SKOS library as ongoing work. It certainly deserves more attention than this quick proof of concept. Holger On 20/01/2016 7:01 PM, Osma Suominen wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 09:33:27 UTC