Re: SHACL and SHACLC mime types

On 01/06/2020 09:57, Vladimir Alexiev wrote:
> We're specifying how the Ontotext Platform should interop with SHACL, 
> and that includes returning SHACL and SHACLC.
> (I believe that SHACLC is very promising because it's much more pleasant 
> to work with than SHACL, and closes one of the competitive gaps against 
> SHEX.)
> 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl and 
> https://w3c.github.io/shacl/shacl-compact-syntax/ don't specify file ext 
> and MIME types.

There is a case that it's not needed.

1/ SHACL/turtle can be part of a document with other data in it 
including for example RDFS.

2/ What is the limit here?  It is RDF - why have a MIME type for SHACL 
and not, say, for a VoID document?

SHACLC - a syntax - does need one.

> Here are some proposals:
> - turtle: text/shacl+turtle with file ext: .shacl
> - compact: text/shaclc with file ext .shaclc
+1

> - jsonld: application/shacl+ld+json (is that even valid?)

It is rather odd!

> - rdf: application/shacl+rdf+xml (is that even valid?)
> 
> Holger, could you send a MIME registration request to IANA?
>

Received on Monday, 1 June 2020 10:02:01 UTC