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

Re: SHACL SKOS library Re: S36 implementation details

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:09 +0100
Message-ID: <569F5509.3090406@few.vu.nl>
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

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