Thanks for the feedback Peter, I tried to reuse some OWL definitions to make this clear <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/9fe3186944e4ace455142935ab8bfa6a528cf740> . I hope that by referencing OWL I didn't get into a new pitfall. Best, Dimitris On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > "The data graph is expected to include all the ontology axioms related to > the data and especially all the rdfs:subClassOf triples in order for SHACL > to correctly identify class targets and validate Core SHACL constraints." > > "The same mechanism applies for ontologies or vocabularies. The ontology or > the vocabulary IRI can point to one or more graphs with the predicate > sh:shapesGraph. A SHACL processor MAY take this information into account > to > determine which shapes graph to use for validating a data graph that uses > that ontology or vocabulary." > > There is no defined notion that can be used to support "the ontology or > vocabulary IRI". > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications > > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILTReceived on Monday, 26 September 2016 14:46:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC