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

One design pattern that will emerge is to have 3 graphs:

- dataGraph owl:imports ontology ; sh:shapesGraph shapesGraph .
- shapesGraph owl:imports ontology

rdfs:subClassOf triples are needed to be present both in the shapes 
graph and the data graph in several places, e.g. to validate 
sh:valueClass constraints. Yet the shapes also need the ontology for the 
sh:scopeClass triples.

Needless to say, the design becomes easier if we have sh:ShapeClass - 
then the shapes naturally go with the ontology and you just need two 
graphs. But some people in the WG seem to strongly dislike this pattern. 
I personally clearly prefer option d) but the best way forward would be 
to let the users pick their preferred pattern. We don't need to spell 
anything out in the spec IMHO.

Holger


On 9/10/2015 18:09, 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)
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 00:28:23 UTC