Open VladimirAlexiev opened 3 months ago
Good feedback Vladimir. My responses:
The OWL schema graph and the SHACL schema graph should never be in play together
I disagree here. I may well want to use RDFS/OWL inference, and at the same time validate with SHACL.
So @ralphtq and @steveraysteveray, does my proposal for splitting into 3 files makes sense?
@VladimirAlexiev, splitting the files as you suggest gets messy, in my opinion. owl:imports is an OWL relation, but is needed for graph management in both the OWL and SHACL collections. Also, when you say "term definitions" in the first file, do you mean just the type declarations, comments and labels, with all the relations to be found in the OWL and SHACL file? If so, then a modeler must look at two files to get a complete picture of each defined concept, right?
Yes, that's what I mean by term definitions. The problem I describe is that term definitions are duplicated. I agree that the more you split, the harder it is to grok QUDT. So I think you should have 1 big core file with most of the stuff, and 2 light files with the two modeling alternatives.
Which is problematic for several reasons:
isDefinedBy
, which is unexpected untypical useThe SHACL even defines individuals like
qudt:CT_UNCOUNTABLE
, which I think have no place in a SHACL file (they can be used there, but shouldn't be defined there).What are the loading scenarios that you want to support? If you want to support loading QUDT with SHACL but without any RDFS/OWL then it's better to split into 3 files:
qudt
: term definitionsrdfs-owl/qudt
: ontological axiomsshacl/qudt
: shapes (using only terms from thesh:
namespace)