Re: FW: SHACL (RDF Shapes) coming up for Candidate Recommendation

Hi Dave,

for tracking purposes I have turned your comment into a GitHub issue, see

     https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/32

and added some discussion there. The WG will discuss all these formal 
issues soon. You are of course welcome to continue the discussion "over 
there". Maybe it would also be worthwhile getting feedback from the 
Protege development community to see if there is any interest in better 
SHACL support in future versions.

Thanks,
Holger


On 9/03/2017 2:22, Dave McComb wrote:
>
> *From:*Dave McComb
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 05, 2017 11:13 AM
> *To:* 'Dean Allemang'
> *Subject:* RE: SHACL (RDF Shapes) coming up for Candidate Recommendation
>
> A slightly deeper problem:
>
> If I try to make a shape (in Protégé) the editor expects the target of 
> sh:targetClass to be an individual (even though the definition has 
> range rdfs:Class)
>
> If I make the change in an exported ttl file, and then reimport it to 
> Protégé, it infers that sh:targetClass is an annotation.
>
> I would recommend making all the properties that attach to Classes and 
> Properties be annotation properties.
>
> This is what we are doing.  At the moment we are just starting on a 
> prototype, inspired by SHACL, but I can’t import SHACL because of 
> issues like this.
>
> *From:*deanallemang@gmail.com <mailto:deanallemang@gmail.com> 
> [mailto:deanallemang@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Dean Allemang
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 05, 2017 10:23 AM
> *To:* Pete Rivett; Elisa Kendall; Cory Casanave; Michael Uschold; Dave 
> McComb; Phil Ashworth; Elvio Sadun; Scuffell Derek GBJH; Peter 
> Lawrence; Sidney Bailin; Rick Spates; Juan Sequeda; Terence R Smith; 
> Wei-yeh Lee; Gregor Wobbe; Terry Roach; jans; John Snelson; Andreas 
> Blumauer; Shaun Rolls; Max Gillmore; Jeff Stein; Jeff Braswell; Kurt 
> Cagle; Andrea Splendiani; Bera, Sunanda
> *Subject:* SHACL (RDF Shapes) coming up for Candidate Recommendation
>
> The RDF Shapes Working Group has finished a draft of SHACL, the RDF 
> constraints language.  For a number of reasons, the committee has come 
> very near its deadline for submission for Candidate Recommendation 
> (that's the required step before Recommendation) so the final review 
> is a bit rushed; the deadline for comments is March 17.  All the 
> details are available at the SHACL proposal page:
>
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
>
> Many people I have spoken to (and even read) seem to be under the 
> impression that SHACL is a sure thing; that some decent recommendation 
> is going to come out of this in due course.  This is not necessarily 
> the case; in fact, the W3C needs to see strong evidence of interest in 
> SHACL for it to go forward.  Therefore, I strongly encourage you to 
> make comments (including your affiliation if you can), even if you 
> think your comment is obvious or trivial.  It is often things that 
> seem "obvious" to someone that reveals the real depth of an important 
> use case.  This is especially important if you have been standing on 
> the sidelines so far, and have not made any comments on earlier drafts.
>
> The March 17 deadline might be extended if there are substantive 
> comments that will require further work, but for now, that is it.  
> Please take some time to look it over and make a comment.  The 
> instructions for comments are in the draft.
>
> If you can think of any other colleagues who should see this 
> announcement, please feel free to forward this to them.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dean
>