- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:36:23 +0200
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I think a non-normative RDF vocabulary should be available to those reading the spec because it makes no sense to make it hard for them to create test SHACL data as part of their reading. Although non-normative, it should be as close as possible to correct, of course. kc On 9/11/15 2:40 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > shapes-ISSUE-87 (Turtle file): Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? [SHACL Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/87 > > Raised by: Holger Knublauch > On product: SHACL Spec > > The question came up whether we want to produce a .ttl file along with the spec. Such a file would either be a SHACL graph or an RDFS ontology, or both. We could also decide to produce both separately, or publish them as non-normative. > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2015 09:36:53 UTC