Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86

Hi Dimitris,
I think you need to spell out the effects to make this proposal stand.

My understanding from yesterday's discussion is that using (2) leads to 
the same results as (1), once owl:imports is processed, while using (3) 
would allow a processor to import the ontology, presumably linked from the 
data graph using owl:imports, into the data graph without necessarily 
pulling in the shapes as well.

Is that right?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote on 
10/09/2015 12:37:39 AM:

> From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 10/09/2015 12:39 AM
> Subject: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86
> 
> A proposal to resolve Issue 86 is the following
> 
> For ontology / vocabulary designers who want to associate shapes 
> with their ontology definition the spec will suggest the following 3
> means of association:
> 1) the shapes will be written in the same document with the ontology
> 2) the shapes graph will be imported using owl:imports
> 3) the shapes graph will be linked from the ontology / vocabulary 
> IRI with the property sh:schemaShapes
> The spec will additionally mention the effects of options (1)/(2) 
> compared to (3).
> 
> Best,
> Dimtiris
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia 
Association
> Events: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/California2015 (Nov 5th)
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://
> http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: http://aksw.org