Re: Relationship between Shapes graph and owl:Ontology

The main motivation for saying it is "often" an owl:Ontology is that 
shape graphs may use owl:imports to follow prefix declarations, and the 
rdfs:domain/range of owl:imports is owl:Ontology. Also, I believe many 
people in practice already assign rdf:type owl:Ontology to the URI 
resource of the graph itself, for example to attach comments and 
provenance information.

Using owl:Ontology as an rdf:type does not imply that the graph must or 
should declare OWL classes or properties. In fact many examples that I 
have seen simply use owl:Ontology in conjunction with RDFS or even data 
graphs.

What problems do you see?

Holger


On 2021-02-18 11:38 pm, Thomas Francart wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is a Shape Graph always an owl:Ontology ? (no, from the spec)
> Why is it "often" (to quote Holger's last email here) declared as an 
> owl:Ontology ?
> What are the advantages of stating it is of type owl:Ontology, if the 
> graph does not declare any new classes or properties or OWL axioms, 
> but only Shapes constraints ? and isn't this declaration misleading ?
> Is this declaration an agreed best practice ?
>
> Thanks !
> Thomas
>
> -- 
> *
> *
> *Thomas Francart* -*SPARNA*
> Web de _données_ | Architecture de l'_information_ | Accès aux 
> _connaissances_
> blog : blog.sparna.fr <http://blog.sparna.fr>, site : sparna.fr 
> <http://sparna.fr>, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart 
> <https://fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart>
> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas