- From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:59:06 -0500
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADE8KM5WcDFaJ7hqdYa2L-4gG5E6diJKaJfoyAPiQ84Hxp4ziw@mail.gmail.com>
On Feb 23, 2017 6:09 PM, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com> ... 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). Holger- Here's a pointer to the documentation on conformance testing, a link to the test cases, the structural and FSS spec, the OWL to RDF mapping document, and the OWL/XML and Manchester Syntax documents. The structural and mapping documents are the most relevant; the former is needed to understand the latter. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/ Test cases: http://owl.semanticweb.org/page/OWL_2_Test_Cases Structural Specification and Functional Style Syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/ OWL 2 Mapping to RDF : http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20121211/ OWL/XML: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20121211/ Manchester Syntax: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/ Simon 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 <(703)%20669-5510> Cell: 703 431 9420 <(703)%20431-9420>
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 01:59:41 UTC