Dear webVowl team, I'm hoping to find a solution to my problem with your tool. I use SHACL shapes to build my ontology, as this is the way to go for validating RDF graphs. This means I don't include any "informational" properties like rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, rdfs:datatype, rdfs:literal or cardinality constraints in owl or rdfs. Everything has "meaningful" SHACL equivalents - sh:minCount, sh:maxCount for cardinalities, sh:datatype for datatypes, sh:class, sh:property and more - meaning I can validate graphs against my SHACL ontology to see if the instance data matches the ontology schema. See https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html for more information.
Is it possible to alter the dictionary which maps a relation to a certain visual element in WebVOWL? Even something simple like the labels and definitions of objects and properties may be defined using different annotative properties like skos:prefLabel, skos:definition or sh:name, sh:description (not referring to owl:annotationProperty here).
if this is not possible yet - is it a feature that would be worth adding in order to support more types of ontologies?
kind regards,
Robin
Dear webVowl team, I'm hoping to find a solution to my problem with your tool. I use SHACL shapes to build my ontology, as this is the way to go for validating RDF graphs. This means I don't include any "informational" properties like rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, rdfs:datatype, rdfs:literal or cardinality constraints in owl or rdfs. Everything has "meaningful" SHACL equivalents - sh:minCount, sh:maxCount for cardinalities, sh:datatype for datatypes, sh:class, sh:property and more - meaning I can validate graphs against my SHACL ontology to see if the instance data matches the ontology schema. See https://spinrdf.org/shacl-and-owl.html for more information.
Is it possible to alter the dictionary which maps a relation to a certain visual element in WebVOWL? Even something simple like the labels and definitions of objects and properties may be defined using different annotative properties like skos:prefLabel, skos:definition or sh:name, sh:description (not referring to owl:annotationProperty here).
if this is not possible yet - is it a feature that would be worth adding in order to support more types of ontologies?
kind regards,
Robin