Irrespective of this, OWL is open world. There are no warnings on max car finality unless there is an explicit statement that each member is different from all others.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2021, at 4:41 AM, David Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Michel, > > Tthe TopBraid rules engine is based on SHACL, not OWL, so Composer does not > come with an embedded DL reasoner (i.e. you should not have expected any > result testing your model this way). > > Cheers, > David > >>> On 18 Oct 2021, at 09:26, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi David >>> My owl experiment: >>> >> <image001.png> >> >> I would have expected a warning about the maxcard being 3 but having 4 >> members in the data. >> (note that in real there will be no explicit members, just here to check the >> logic…). >> >> Gr michel >> >> >> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms >> Scientist Specialist >> Structural Reliability >> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 >> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 >> E [email protected] >> Location >> >> >> <image002.gif> >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are >> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it >> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the >> electronic transmission of messages. >> >> From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:55 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Michel Bohms <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] owl restrictions for individuals? >> >> Thx david, much appreciated >> I will experiment both owa owl and cwa shacl variants. Lets see if i can >> bring the pattern correctly to shacl first... >> The results will indeed help us to decide.... >> Gr michel >> >> >> Op 13 okt. 2021 15:04 schreef David Price <[email protected]>: >> Hi Michel, >> >> A final question … Have you run any OWL reasoner over this and produced any >> inconsistency e.g. in the case of 301 members of your Container saying only >> 300 are allowed? >> >> I’m not sure the “semantics” you think exist in this setup are actually >> there. Maybe I’m wrong as I’ve not tried it, but it looks questionable to me >> and actually using a tool such as a DL reasoner is the only way to be sure. >> Does it at least not complain about these structures as it’s possible the >> customers of your ontology might use these tools. FWIW I’ve not used any >> OWL Full reasoners so not sure how you’d test what you propose otherwise. >> >> Also, as always note that OWL is OWA so missing data such as min card = 1 >> cannot not be reported as an error. >> >> Anyway, in answer to your “Would that be possible within TBC/EDG?": >> >> TBC will probably let you view that structure but not 100% sure the >> form-based editing supports it. I did not try it myself. >> >> EDG = not out-of-the-box but perhaps with some configuration. The EDG UI is >> driven by SHACL and the out-of-the-box OWL2SHACL feature does not cover the >> restriction structures you sent. It’s not hard to extend the OWL2SHACL >> within EDG so you could add whatever SHACL generation you wanted to see >> appear taking that OWL structure as input. EDG 7.1 will support the SHACL >> qualified value shapes and it does report violations … I’ve actually tested >> that and the CWA helps make that so. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> On 13 Oct 2021, at 13:00, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi David >> >> Thx for your view. >> >> Personally I think the rdfs containers captures at least some generic >> “grouping” semantics. >> I would not like to redefine that myself (own group classes, member >> relations etc.). >> >> On the other hand we might misuse this way a mechanism meant for explicit >> grouping for implicit grouping. >> >> In any case the practical need is really there in asset mngt. People do not >> want to model (in their view) all the details from others. >> In the example: they want to be able to model the groups of things having >> typical properties and the group having properties like an amount of >> members, total cost, etc. without the need to be able to explicitly point to >> the members. >> >> In that sense our pattern could fulfil those needs: we have a group >> (container), we do not model explicit members, but add other properties to >> the group (like total cost) and are able to put restrictions on their >> members (like ‘all should be yellow’). So we capture the typical member data >> in a restriction without having the (explicit) members themselves….that >> might be special too…. >> >> Anyway, we’ll consider, thx >> >> >> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms >> Scientist Specialist >> Structural Reliability >> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 >> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 >> E [email protected] >> Location >> >> >> <image001.gif> >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are >> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it >> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the >> electronic transmission of messages. >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On >> Behalf Of David Price >> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 5:34 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] owl restrictions for individuals? >> >> The following is just my opinion: >> >> RDFS collections have zero semantics, so using them for a purpose like this >> sounds like a bad idea. I have never used them in any ontology for any >> customer. >> >> Calling something an “implicit group” and then trying to use semantics to >> define it does not make any sense to me. So, it’s hard to really understand >> your requirements, but if there is a need to “group” things then : >> >> - perhaps make a class called <x>Groups and make instances of that class be >> your groups. Then a simple object property member of<x>Group can relate any >> instance to that group. >> - a second approach is to define a datatype property but give it anyURI as >> its datatype. This is often how models relate to external reference data >> libraries not actually imported into the current graph - i.e. they have a >> property called something like “external classification” with a URI value >> that usually dereferences to something in a giant online RDL. >> >> Both of are easy in OWL and SHACL. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> On 11 Oct 2021, at 15:46, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hereby also the actual code example for modelling implicit groups of assets. >> (via a nested constraint for an individual) >> >> Example: a road crash barrier having associated an implicit group of 300 >> yellow km-signs. >> >> No complaints from TBC. >> Still special way of modelling, comments welcome. >> >> # baseURI: https://w3id.org/igtest/owl/def >> # imports: https://w3id.org/nen2660/owl/def >> >> @prefix nen2660: https://w3id.org/nen2660/def# . >> @prefix owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# . >> @prefix quantitykind: http://qudt.org/vocab/quantitykind/ . >> @prefix qudt: http://qudt.org/schema/qudt/ . >> @prefix rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# . >> @prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# . >> @prefix skos: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core# . >> @prefix unit: http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/ . >> @prefix wn: https://w3id.org/wegennetwerk/def# . >> @prefix xsd: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# . >> @prefix ig: https://w3id.org/igtest/def# . >> >> https://w3id.org/igtest/owl/def >> a owl:Ontology ; >> owl:imports https://w3id.org/nen2660/owl/def ; >> . >> ig:GeleideConstructie a owl:Class ; >> . >> ig:HectometerPaal a owl:Class ; >> . >> ig:GCnoorderZijberm-hm15dot-hm25dot3 a ig:GeleideConstructie ; >> ig:hasGroupedParts ig:HMPgroup_1 ; >> . >> ig:HMPgroup_1 a rdfs:Container ; >> a [a owl:Restriction ; >> owl:onProperty rdfs:member; >> owl:qualifiedCardinality 300 ; >> owl:onClass [ rdfs:subClassOf ig:HectometerPaal; >> rdfs:subClassOf [ >> a owl:Restriction; >> owl:hasvalue "Geel"; >> owl:onProperty ig:kleur] ] ] ; >> . >> ig:hasGroupedParts a owl:ObjectProperty ; >> rdfs:range rdfs:Container ; >> . >> ig:kleur a owl:DatatypeProperty ; >> rdfs:range xsd:string ; >> . >> >> >> >> >> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms >> Scientist Specialist >> Structural Reliability >> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 >> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 >> E [email protected] >> Location >> >> >> <image001.gif> >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are >> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it >> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the >> electronic transmission of messages. >> >> From: 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 12:52 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [topbraid-users] owl restrictions for individuals? >> >> In asset management/modelling we often see the need to define groups of >> (many) things that are not (yet) fully explicitly modelled. >> Ie a rdfs:Bag instance where not all rdfs:member’ s are known explicitly. >> >> Such ‘implicit groups’ as we call them, we would like to represent using OWL >> restriction classes in owl (and later also shacl shapes) that are used to >> classify such group instances. >> Typically all examples we see is using such restriction classes for >> subclassing on class-level. >> So now the idea is to use them for classifying instances. >> >> Would that be possible within TBC/EDG? >> >> In my perception, such instance-level constraint was only a shacl-benefit. >> But now one of my partners says that this can be done with owl restrictions >> too. >> >> Here is a sketch of the proposal: >> <image002.png> >> Not that the restriction R (left side) is related to the instance of the >> group #1 working on its member property. >> Note also its is a nested restriction: onClass has further subrestrictions. >> >> If allowed (owl full?) and practically working in TBC/EDG, it would be a >> very nice language-level approach, better than own inventions like an own >> hasReferenceIndividual relationship etc. >> >> Thx Michel >> >> >> >> >> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms >> Scientist Specialist >> Structural Reliability >> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 >> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 >> E [email protected] >> Location >> >> >> <image001.gif> >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are >> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it >> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the >> electronic transmission of messages. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/8dcd808efee34cb7aac43463f7051a2c%40tno.nl. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/316603ffe60c4eaa8715f65c13325f2d%40tno.nl. >> >> UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 >> US +1 (336) 283-0808 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/207CE8D6-ECA3-4C44-831F-52B48C77E935%40topquadrant.com. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/61d63163224444fb987d87b75748378d%40tno.nl. >> >> UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 >> US +1 (336) 283-0808 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/D54448E4-FC87-48D4-9743-AC72412E3477%40topquadrant.com. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TopBraid Suite Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/bcf9c28b2ced4d1eb76e3fb7f22866d9%40tno.nl. > > UK +44 (0) 7788 561308 > US +1 (336) 283-0808 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/E06F01EC-AC34-4219-A6F7-A73FF7DDECB2%40topquadrant.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/423867E3-AADD-4CF6-95DC-A47489464432%40topquadrant.com.
