Re: on ontologies/vocabulary

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/KILT