- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:09 +0100
- To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Osma, Thanks for digging this up! It's funny how this SHACL representation of SKOS is mentioned in a discussion that seems to be on a slightly different topic (i.e. using SKOS concept schemes as input for data validation). No surprise it didn't get a lot of visibility if it's the only place it was 'released'. Has anyone happened to have a look or use this SHACL doc besides the TopQuadrant people? Antoine On 1/20/16 10:01 AM, 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 09:36:40 UTC