Discussion on 26 November 2015

Results

➔       Declare one large "library" ontology. Functional views are used only for documentary purposes, possibly using owl:ontology. This mirrors the XML publication strategy, with convenience ontologies and one huge "library" ontology. Comments in the header would make it clear that this is a subset.

➔       Functional views could be implemented using ShEx and/or SHACL.

➔       There is another constraint language called SPIN which is older and better-adopted, but may not be as good.

➔       We need to focus more on requirements gathering and more formal use cases, especially as regards functional views.

➔       Most software developers are likely to work to the full schema, and that is fine.

➔       Question to developers: should what are today sequences be replaced by choices.

➔       We should use named graphs for packaging, or to use them (for constraints) to agree with functional view ontologies. Thus, an "instance" named graph could point to a "schema" named graph consisting of RDFS/OWL to define a functional view.