On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ISSUE-86 (mostly a repeat from last week) > > I vote -1 on any proposal that requires or advocates putting shape and data > information or shape and ontology information together. SHACL is not a > modelling language. SHACL can function with shape information fully > separated > from > data and ontology information and this separation should be the suggested > way > to use SHACL. > > This means that I vote -1 on Dimitris's proposal. > Personally I would prefer only option c (linking with sh:schemaShapes) but I think Holger would object to that and that's why I added options a & b. The truth is that we cannot force people to write ontology axioms and shapes in separate graphs even if that can be considered a better practice. In addition, the current spec already mentions the mixing of shapes and ontology information with sh:ShapeClass which is a syntactic sortcut for rdfs:Class, sh:Shape and sh:scopeClass (issue-23 / unresolved yet) Dimitris -- 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
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2015 06:12:29 UTC