W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: on ontologies/vocabulary

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:45:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3yoS28AGXx7uTuKN6Mi31QvUKP8GMjkr+QD2OrVjjzPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Thanks for the feedback Peter,

I tried to reuse some OWL definitions to make this clear
I hope that by referencing OWL I didn't get into a new pitfall.


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,
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received 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