- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:49:39 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 11/27/2014 10:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I think that the relevance of this part of the thread is whether > associating constraints/shapes with ontologies commits one to using > those shapes. The argument against committing appears to be that one > would then lose interoperability. What we do in TopBraid is that people can have local copies of remote files in their local "workspace". If an owl:import is found, it first looks if a local copy of that graph URI exists. That local copy may have different definitions, drop constraints or whatever, if the particular application wants to do that. I believe this is straight-forward architecture that other systems use too. Yet, there is value in publishing the original constraints in the master copy of an ontology, on the network. Specifications such as SKOS, PROV and other user stories in our list would arguably have done that if there had been a standard. Holger
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2014 00:52:27 UTC