Assume I have:
(3/4) SKOS concepten schema; (3/4) RDFS ontologie (importeert het SKOS schema); (3/4) OWL ontologie (importeert de RDFS ontologie); (3/4) SHACL ontologie (importeert de RDFS ontologie[1]). All addressing complementary aspects... 1. How needed is the RDFS import by OWL? (guess not) 2. Idem for RDFS import by SHACL? (or OWL ignoring the owl-stuff) Think 1. Can be out, but I doubt about 2. (does the shalcl shape need the class working with implicit shapes so no target classes) Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms Scientist Specialist Structural Reliability T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 E michel.bo...@tno.nl<mailto:michel.bo...@tno.nl> Location<http://www.tno.nl/locations/DTS> [cid:image001.gif@01D76924.BB0009C0]<http://www.tno.nl/> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages. ________________________________ [1] Kan eventueel ook de OWL ontologie zijn omdat SHACL de OWL-aspecten simpelweg negeert. Dit geldt niet andersom: de OWL ontologie moet niet de SHACL graaf importeren want OWL is strikter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/3a102dfc871a4cec8218efd56ca6745f%40tno.nl.
