Re: RDF validity question

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 10:48, <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:

> Mark,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your quick response.
>
> As my old math teacher used to say: "If you don't understand it, at least
> admire it".
>
>
>
> Please help me understand by commenting on my rationale.
>
>
>
> At ontology level I define that valves have actuators, eventually with a
> cardinality. I define that as shown.
>
> The purpose of that is to define an object information model, like an
> empty fill-in-the-blanks data sheet.
>



 That is done in order to provide the software to validate information
> about individual valves, or to call for information about the actuator of a
> particular valve.
>
> When that data field is completed you can validate that that is indeed an
> instance of ValveActuator (all instances are declared and typed).
>
>
>
> So, yes, I want to use RDFS as a genuine schema.
>

(on this point only - didn’t follow entire thread)

You may find SHACL (or ShEx) a better fit for validation-oriented schemas

Dan

Please bear with me:
>
>    1. rdf:Property is a class that is an instance of rdfs:Class
>    2. an Abox instance of rdf:Property defines the criteria of membership
>    of that rdf:Property, as defined by the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range.
>    3. that Abox instance of rdf:Property can be typed with that Tbox
>    Property and, my guess, use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range to show which
>    resources are linked by it
>    4. and have metadata (effectivity, status, access rights, etc)
>    5. SPARQL can handle these semantics, no need for OWL.
>
>
>
> The next question might reveal my ignorance: Could this be the link to
> Property Graphs?
>
>
>
> To answer your question about dateTime: We aim at a perdurant storage of
> information, so persistently storing state changes over many years (think
> of personal medical information, but then for a process plant and its
> equipment).
>
> The valve ex:34543 may, later, get another actuator, and this information
> replaces the older information, where the latter keeps being on record.
>
>
>
> RDF, to me, seems to have a focus documenting a particular state, valid at
> a particular dateTime.
>
> RDF* may the way out (thanks Pierre-Antoine), but for some reason it takes
> rather long before it is a Recommendation.
>
>
>
> Forgive me my stubbornness, but I need to know exactly what's wrong in my
> construct.
>
>
>
> Regards, Hans
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Wallace <mark.wallace@semanticarts.com>
> *Sent:* donderdag 25 augustus 2022 23:32
> *To:* hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl; semantic-web@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: RDF validity question
>
>
>
> No. In short,  ranges and domains are for stating things about properties
> (Tbox/schema) and not about instances of classes.
>
>
>
> If you want to reify the predicate, you could do so using:
>
>    1. rdf:Statement in RDF
>    2. owl:Axiom in OWL2,
>    3. define your owl owl:Class that will represent the relationship.
>    E.g. my:HasPartRelation a owl:Class, with possible subclass
>    HasActuatorRelation or some such.
>
>
>
> What is it you want your date/time to indicate?
>
>
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2022 2:27 PM
> *To:* semantic-web@w3.org
> *Subject:* RDF validity question
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am trying to reify predicates in a different way, and I need to know
> whether this is valid RDF.
>
>
>
> Assume I define an rdf:Property:
>
>
>
> ont:hasPart
>
>     rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
>
>     rdfs:domain rdl:Artefact ;
>
>     rdfs:range rdl:Artefact .
>
>
>
> ont:valveHasActuator
>
>     rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
>
>     rdfs:subPropertyOf ont:hasPart ;
>
>     rdfs:domain rdl:Valve ;
>
>     rdfs:range rdl:ValveActuator .
>
>
>
> Then I have project information that tells that individual valve actuator
> 84128 is a part of individual valve 34543, effective that dateTime.
>
>
>
> ex:76329
>
>     rdf:type ont:valveHasActuator ;
>
>     rdfs:domain ex:34543 ; # myValve
>
>     rdfs:range ex:84128 ;   # myValveActuator
>
>     meta:effectiveDate "2022-08-24T10:42:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime .
>
>
>
> Is this semantically and syntactically correct RDF? (it passed the
> syntactic test).
>
>
>
> I hope to hear from you!
>
>
>
> (sorry Guus, I need the answer asap)
>