I’ve been skimming through sections of the OSLC Core 3.0. Do any OSLC standards cite as normative references for domain ontologies any OWL standards, e.g., OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-Based Semantics, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance?
Please take a look at OSLC Core Version 3.0. Part 6: Resource Shape
Overall, OSLC attempts to:
- Minimize mentions of OWL to avoid giving a false impression that its vocabs are full-scale ontologies.
- Discourage OSLC server implementers from extending OSLC domains in a way that would put the burden of reasoning on OSLC clients while not discouraging the use of ontologies and reasoners on the OSLC server backend. The reason for the latter is that OSLC aims to be compatible with Linked Data and Semantic Web principles without placing onerous requirements on the clients that may get scared off if they see reasoning and ontologies.
- Draw a line between OWL constraints that constrain the entailments that a reasoner may draw during inferencing vs the shape (OSLC/SHACL) constraints that constrain the valid data accepted from the clients.
@jamsden would you like to add anything?