UCO currently has a practice of not using rdfs:domain on properties. It is possible to draw up a list of mimicking the behavior of "domain includes" annotations seen in some other RDF models, by running a SPARQL query. E.g., to see what classes expect and evaluate usage of uco-observable:value, this query can be run against a monolithic build of the ontology:
PREFIX sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#>
PREFIX uco-observable: <https://ontology.unifiedcyberontology.org/uco/observable/>
SELECT ?nClass
WHERE {
?nClass
sh:property / sh:path uco-observable:value ;
.
}
ORDER BY ?nClass
That query happens to return this against the current state of UCO's develop branch:
|
?nClass |
| 0 |
observable:DomainNameFacet |
| 1 |
observable:EnvironmentVariable |
| 2 |
observable:PropertyReadEffectFacet |
This could be done as documentation for properties, once PR 9's folder rearrangement is done.
UCO currently has a practice of not using
rdfs:domainon properties. It is possible to draw up a list of mimicking the behavior of "domain includes" annotations seen in some other RDF models, by running a SPARQL query. E.g., to see what classes expect and evaluate usage ofuco-observable:value, this query can be run against a monolithic build of the ontology:That query happens to return this against the current state of UCO's
developbranch:This could be done as documentation for properties, once PR 9's folder rearrangement is done.