Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2015-10-09 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from October 2015)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:01:00 -0700
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5618391C.3050205@gmail.com>

On 10/09/2015 12:37 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 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
> 

Are there any effects of using sh:schemaShapes?

peter

Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 22:01:36 UTC