Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace?

Holger,

Certainly one could do an RDF merge of the two files to get the
complete picture. The files should never contain contradictory
information.

-- Arthur

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> That sounds OK to me. I believe we should aim at a situation in which these
> two files can be mixed/overlaid without any ill side effects. Basically, the
> SHACL file can add triples to the URIs defined in the base vocab. I believe
> the vocab file could simply be a list of URIs, possibly with rdf:type
> triples, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:labels and rdfs:comments. I don't think
> anything else is needed.
>
> I had already implemented an automatic documentation generator in our
> previous round on this topic.
>
> Holger
>
>
>
> On 11/12/15 2:04 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>
>> I propose the following:
>>
>> 1. We should publish two normative files: shacl-vocab.ttl and
>> shacl-shacl.ttl
>>
>> 2. shacl-vocab.ttl should be a simple RDFS vocabulary that does not
>> contain any shape information. It should be readable by anyone
>> knowledgeable in RDFS, but not SHACL
>>
>> 3. shacl-shacl.ttl should use SHACL to define the shape of valid SHACL
>> documents
>>
>> 4. both files should also be automatically transformed to HTML, e.g.
>> as in [3]. There exists XSLT for transforming RDFS vocabularies
>> [4].This transform could be reimplemented in Javascript and integrated
>> with ReSpec. A similar transform could be developed for SHACL
>> documents.
>>
>> 5. W3C should host these files and support Turtle/HTML content
>> negotiation as per [1] and [2].
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
>> [3] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/JazzProcessVocabulary
>> [4] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/PublishingRdfVocabularies
>>
>> -- Arthur
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 04:47:34 UTC