- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:21:31 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
That sounds OK to me. I believe we should aim at a situation in which these two files can be mixed/overlaid without any ill side effects. Basically, the SHACL file can add triples to the URIs defined in the base vocab. I believe the vocab file could simply be a list of URIs, possibly with rdf:type triples, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:labels and rdfs:comments. I don't think anything else is needed. I had already implemented an automatic documentation generator in our previous round on this topic. Holger On 11/12/15 2:04 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > I propose the following: > > 1. We should publish two normative files: shacl-vocab.ttl and shacl-shacl.ttl > > 2. shacl-vocab.ttl should be a simple RDFS vocabulary that does not > contain any shape information. It should be readable by anyone > knowledgeable in RDFS, but not SHACL > > 3. shacl-shacl.ttl should use SHACL to define the shape of valid SHACL documents > > 4. both files should also be automatically transformed to HTML, e.g. > as in [3]. There exists XSLT for transforming RDFS vocabularies > [4].This transform could be reimplemented in Javascript and integrated > with ReSpec. A similar transform could be developed for SHACL > documents. > > 5. W3C should host these files and support Turtle/HTML content > negotiation as per [1] and [2]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ > [3] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/JazzProcessVocabulary > [4] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/LinkedData/PublishingRdfVocabularies > > -- Arthur >
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 04:22:05 UTC