- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:31:41 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/2/2015 14:22, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 11/1/15 7:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> On 11/2/2015 12:31, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> Holger, without getting into details (because those will need to be >>> worked out), can we at least agree that it would be useful to create a >>> vocabulary that does not require a SHACL engine >> >> Are you implying that the shacl.shacl file requires a SHACL engine? > > I thought that's what you were implying when you said: > > >>> Many properties such as sh:minCount are reused in multiple places, > which > >>> makes pure rdfs:range statements insufficient to express them. These > >>> would either require owl:unionOf classes or owl:Restrictions. > > So shacl.shacl requires the ability to interpret shacl, not just the > ability to interpret RDFS or OWL (which it doesn't seem to use). If > that's not the case, then I guess I don't understand what this engine > is that we keep referring to. I use the term "engine" for a processor that can take a SHACL file and produce constraint violations. This is unrelated from editing, for which the structural declarations in SHACL files are already suitable for. Holger
Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 04:32:14 UTC