- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 23:44:20 -0400
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Tim was explicit that rdfs:seeAlso wouldn't be good enough, since he
wants machines to able to do the importing.
He may not have thought through all the implications, though. What
kinds of unpredictable things might happen, do you think? I suppose it
make make some systems validate all their shapes, when that isn't needed.
-- Sandro
On 04/09/2017 10:56 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I think sh:shapesGraph would be an option here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sh-shapes-graph
>
> However, given that the shacl namespace may be imported into a wide
> variety of use cases and thus the potential wide implications of
> adding such a triple are unpredictable right now, what about just
> rdfs:seeAlso?
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 10/04/2017 12:21, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> TimBL asked us to put a machine readable link from the SHACL
>> namespace document (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl) to the SHACL
>> document which can be used to validate documents written using that
>> namespace (https://www.w3.org/ns/shacl-shacl). This seems like the
>> kind of link that would be generally useful, even if only as a rough
>> default. Obviously in many cases, one namespace would be
>> appropriately used in lots of different shapes. But in some cases
>> (eg SHACL) where there's a sensible default, it'd be nice for the
>> machines to be able to find it. So, has anyone made such a
>> predicate? If not, is there a reason not to make it up now, as a
>> non-rec-track extension?
>>
>> -- Sandro
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 03:44:27 UTC