What type(s) of issue is this?
Other (specify in text)
What is the issue?
Wouldn't it be very convenient if the SHACL, now defined in the spec text, were available as separate files in the fdp-specs repository? (preferably in .ttl format?)
These files should be normative, with the spec itself referring to them directly, so as to have a single source of truth, without duplication. Alternatively the spec text could be templated to include the content of the .ttl files.
Any dependent application would be able to refer directly to the normative .ttl files using their respective URLs.
What type(s) of issue is this?
Other (specify in text)
What is the issue?
Wouldn't it be very convenient if the SHACL, now defined in the spec text, were available as separate files in the fdp-specs repository? (preferably in
.ttlformat?)These files should be normative, with the spec itself referring to them directly, so as to have a single source of truth, without duplication. Alternatively the spec text could be templated to include the content of the
.ttlfiles.Any dependent application would be able to refer directly to the normative
.ttlfiles using their respective URLs.