- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:47:05 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/2/2015 12:31, Karen Coyle wrote: > Holger, without getting into details (because those will need to be > worked out), can we at least agree that it would be useful to create a > vocabulary that does not require a SHACL engine Are you implying that the shacl.shacl file requires a SHACL engine? > and that covers, at least initially, only the core SHACL properties > and classes? Anyone here can make suggestions for such a file, including a brand-new OWL ontology, an RDF Schema, a grammar or whatever. We can then review it. My personal belief is that it would be best to just have a single Turtle file from which the other representations can be automatically generated. Creating a structural OWL model from a SHACL file is straight-forward, but going the other direction is harder. Holger
Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 03:47:38 UTC