- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:37:50 +0200
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
In terms of flexibility, I definitely second the need of some import mechanism. A potential use case could e.g. require the validation of an RDF graph following different "levels of rigor". .) According to Level A, graph G must conform to Shape graph SG1. .) According to Level B, graph G must conform to Shape graph SG1 and SG2. .) ... simon --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2015-04-15 10:36, schrieb Holger Knublauch: > On 4/15/15 4:32 PM, Simon Steyskal wrote: >> Just for clarification: >> >>> So the main question here is whether SHACL should have such >>> properties >>> at all (and possibly a class sh:Graph to represent the graph itself). >> >> The graph that should be affected by shapes, i.e. should be considered >> for validation? > > Yes, primarily. Although something like sh:include will also make > sense between shape graphs. > > Holger
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 09:38:18 UTC