Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec]

On Oct 1, 2015 4:37 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I do not see that SHACL needs any connection between a shapes graph and an
> ontology definition.
>
> For purposes of designing a collection of shapes, having access to an
ontology
> that provides axioms about the classes in a collection of shapes is handy.
> However, validating SHACL shapes or documents against a data graph or
node in
> a data graph does not need any link going from the shapes graph to an
ontology
> graph.   A SHACL validation engine does need to have access to ontology
axioms
> to determine whether a node in the data graph is a SHACL instance of a
class,
> but this is best done by including a graph with the required ontology
axioms
> into the data graph.
>
> I therefore vote 0 for a) and -1 for the other options.
>
>
>
> I would vote +1 for a proposal like:
>
> PROPOSED: The SHACL spec states that there is no need for a link from a
SHACL
> shapes graph to an ontology graph and does not define such a link.  The
SHACL
> spec further states that there is nothing in SHACL to prevent a SHACL
shapes
> graph from including ontology axioms or importing ontology axioms, but
that
> such inclusion or importation has no effect on determining whether a node
in a
> data graph is a SHACL instance of a class.

I'd this a term of art to express that an RDF node confirms to a shape?

> The SHACL spec states that
> ontology axioms that affect SHACL are either part of the data graph or
> included from the data graph.   The SHACL spec mentions that SHACL shape
> graphs are often best developed in conjunction with a set of ontology
axioms
> and that tools for the development of SHACL shapes may want to provide
> mechanisms for viewing axioms from a separate ontology.
>
> This proposal clearly makes the required distinction between what is
required
> for SHACL validation and thus should be part of the SHACL language, and
what
> is useful for SHACL development and thus should not be part of the SHACL
language.
>
>
> peter
>
>
> On 09/10/2015 01:09 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> > shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or
vocabularies [SHACL Spec]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/86
> >
> > Raised by: Dimitris Kontokostas
> > On product: SHACL Spec
> >
> > Related to ISSUE-44, this is issue is about ways to associate an
ontology or vocabulary to a set of shapes.
> >
> > Possible ways to resolve it
> > a) SHACL spec says nothing about associating ontologies/vocabularies
with shapes
> > b) SHACL spec suggests the use of owl:imports
> > c) SHACL spec suggests the use of sh:shapesGraph
> > d) SHACL spec suggests shapes are defined in the same file with the
ontology/vocabulary
> > e) SHACL spec suggests a combination of (d) with (b) or (c)
> >
> >
> >
>