W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: SHACL for OWL2

From: Stephane Fellah <stephanef@imagemattersllc.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:37:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+VBKCEGgfy_Ns=TKzpb+pycP20h3YYs9-3qeS3k18Rks8WCPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Simon,

It is mostly for proper encoding. There is a lot of invalid OWL files out
there  (for example missing onProperty on restrictions, missing onClass for
qualified cardinalities, list not closed, etc). The OWL API is too strict
to indicate what are the syntactic errors in the OWL file. Also I would
like to use SHACL to perform quality report for vocabularies (OWL and SKOS).
I think SHACL can be a nice alternative/complement to OWL API to validate
OWL and SKOS taxonomies (at least its encoding). I would be useful that a
set of standard shapes being defined for OWL and SKOS validation and
quality reporting.

Regards
Stephane

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2017 1:52 PM, "Stephane Fellah" <stephanef@imagemattersllc.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am trying to use SHACL to validate OWL 2 ontologies to enforce proper
> encoding of OWL in RDF. Is there any work done in this area ? Is it
> feasible ?
>
>
> What do you mean by proper encoding? There are a lot of semantic
> conditions that would be tricky to check.
>
> Why not just use owlapi, with the parser mode set to strict. You can then
> use one of the profile validators on the loaded ontology to check for
> profile conformance.
>
> Simon
>



-- 
Stephane Fellah
Chief  Knowledge Scientist
Image Matters LLC
Office: +(703) 669 5510
Cell: 703 431 9420
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 19:38:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC