- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:08:08 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ae27c0f4-9b55-8881-73e0-8862a67b481c@topquadrant.com>
FWIW I agree these would be great SHACL shapes graphs to have, e.g. as open source projects. There has been similar work in the past happening for SKOS using SPIN. Many other popular vocabularies such as RDF Data Cubes also define constraints that have so far not been captured in an executable form. See https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S21:_SKOS_Constraints https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S22:_RDF_Data_Cube_Constraints https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S23:_schema.org_Constraints https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S30:_PROV_Constraints Plenty of interesting projects in this space... Regarding OWL, is there a definite list of syntax rules somewhere that could be tested? I am also wondering whether the OWL W3C Working Group had made such a checker mandatory for OWL implementations (as Peter requests we make mandatory for SHACL). Thanks, Holger On 24/02/2017 4:43, Stephane Fellah wrote: > I am trying to use SHACL to validate OWL 2 ontologies to enforce > proper encoding of OWL in RDF. Is there any work done in this area ? > Is it feasible ? > > Regards > > -- > Stephane Fellah > Chief Knowledge Scientist > Image Matters LLC > Office: +(703) 669 5510 > Cell: 703 431 9420
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 23:08:45 UTC