Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?

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.

>
>> and that covers, at least initially, only the core SHACL properties
>> and classes?
>
> Anyone here can make suggestions for such a file, including a brand-new
> OWL ontology, an RDF Schema, a grammar or whatever. We can then review
> it. My personal belief is that it would be best to just have a single
> Turtle file from which the other representations can be automatically
> generated. Creating a structural OWL model from a SHACL file is
> straight-forward, but going the other direction is harder.

Well, I'd sure like to see that and to try it out. Especially if it's 
straight-forward. The current shacl.shacl is not something I can work 
with -- but perhaps others have had a different experience. That's worth 
asking: who here has used shacl.shacl, and in what environment?

kc

>
> Holger
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 04:22:47 UTC