Explorer does not show expected relationships

[Farhad (Farhad Basiri)]

Hi all,
I am evaluating Stardog Cloud and found an unexpected behaviour when I resumed my task recently after a few weeks:
I have a database where one named graph (https://brickschema.org/schema/Brick#) contains an ontology, accessible here for reference, and another graph that contain triples that are encoded according to the ontology.

When I query the graph using Studio, then I can achieve the expected results, using the query that is pasted below.

But when I use the Explorer, I cannot see the expected object properties anymore. I am sure that this was possible a few weeks ago.

I have set "Brick=https://brickschema.org/schema/Brick#" in "reasoning.schemas" in the database properties section.

[Farhad (Farhad Basiri)]

Hi again,
To make it easier to replicate the issue, this SPARQL can be used to create the triples that are needed. You can find the ontology that I used in the post above. I still get the unexpected results. Any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks!
Best regards, Farhad

PREFIX brick: <https://brickschema.org/schema/Brick#>
insert {
    graph <:testgraph>
    {
    <http://test/MySite> a brick:Site;
          rdfs:label "MySite";
          brick:hasPart <http://test/MySystem>.
    <http://test/MySystem> a brick:System;
            rdfs:label "MySystem";
            brick:hasPart <http://test/MyEquipment>.
    <http://test/MyEquipment> a brick:Equipment;
               rdfs:label "MyEquipment";
               brick:hasPoint <http://test/MyPoint>.
    <http://test/MyPoint> a brick:Point;
           rdfs:label "MyPoint".
    } 
}
where {}

[Lars_Heling]

Dear Farhad,

thanks for sharing the data to reproduce. I suspect that the ontology you are using does not fulfill all criteria for the relationships to be shown/expandable in Explorer. You can find the necessary model criteria in our documentation. For example, make sure to have domain/domainIncludes and/or range/rangeIncludes defined.

I hope this will solve your issue!

Best regards,

Lars

[Farhad (Farhad Basiri)]

Thanks for the reply Lars,
The funny thing is that I didn't have this issue with the very same ontology a few weeks ago.
Is the model criteria that you point to a new addition to Explorer?
Best regards, Farhad

[Lars_Heling]

These criteria are not new but there has been a recent optimization for Explorer to avoid loading unnecessary data for very large ontologies (> 1K concepts). With this optimization, Explorer does not include loading relationships for nodes that are not explicitly defined as having a domain and range. Since the ontology you are using has > 2.4K concepts (owl:Class) this optimization is likely to have caused the difference in behavior for you.

Best regards,
Lars

[Farhad (Farhad Basiri)]

Hi Lars, thanks for your response!
I can confirm this. When i try to load a small portion of the Brick ontology, then the Explorer works as it used to do. However, I find this constraint limiting i my case, since I won't be able to use Explorer for demonstration purposes as I was hoping to do. If would be very appreciated if it would be possible to turn of this constraint in the same manner that reasoning can be activated / deactivated. Do you think that this can be possible in future?
Best regards, Farhad

[Laura_Firey]

Thanks Farhad. Please note that I've added this as a feature request for our product team to consider.

If the full Brick ontology is not necessary for your use case I would recommend trimming the ontology down to the relevant portion or adding domainIncludes and rangeInclude associations to the subset of the ontology you are using.

[Farhad (Farhad Basiri)]

Hi Laura,
The full Brick ontology is not necessary, but the ontology is very large and grows larger for each version and it is a rather cumbersome task to trim away parts of it to get to < 1K concepts.
As for the domainIncludes and rangeInclude associations, I think that the authors of the ontology have deliberately left these out for some of the core object properties to allow for more flexibility in modelling. A Building can have Zones, Systems and Equipments (as well as other concepts) as parts for instance.

Thanks for adding the feature request. I'll keep my fingers crossed