- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:22:32 -0800
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Oh, no, I agree, one software program should not dictate the design of SHACL. kc On 11/1/15 8:29 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 11/2/2015 14:17, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Well, I have to say that I have not been successful in loading >> SHACL.SHACL.ttl directly into tools such as Protege > > Protege is based on the OWL API. The OWL API is not based on RDF and > does not fully support RDF. The limitations of one open source project > should not dictate the design of SHACL. It is unlikely that trying to > use vanilla Protege for editing Shapes will be realistic. A proper SHACL > plugin for Protege will hopefully be created at some stage. Oh wait... > > http://me-at-big.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/shacl4p-shapes-constraint-language.html > > > Holger > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 23:23:04 UTC