Add clause for 'Specifications using RDFS, SHACL, and OWL to state requirements'

[dr-shorthair]

Alongside the clauses for UML, XML Schema etc.

[cnreediii]

@dr-shorthair That should be "standards using . . . :-) That said, while I do not disagree with the suggestion, who will write these clauses? And what are the implications with using Metanorma? Again, another topic for discussion!

[cmheazel]

Consider re-structuring the ModSpec as a multi-part standard. A core (platform independent) Part 1 and technology specific parts 2-n. This would mirror how we write other standards.

[cnreediii]

@cmheazel Totally agree! This issue (18) is actually two sub-issues: ModSpec version 2 should be in Parts as you suggest and some future parts could/should be JSON, OWL, etc.

Perhaps Issue 18 can be resolved in the near term.

[rob-metalinkage]

I don't think we make this mandatory, but specifications that can use a technology appropriate machine readable and testable constraints are going to be far better than those relying on discovering and parsing and interpreting text alone.

[cmheazel]

RDFS, SHACL, and OWL are usually used together. Suggest that we document these requirements as three sections of one part.

[cnreediii]

Currently added as note in Future Work clause.

[cnreediii]

Revision is Multi-Part. RDFS, SHACL, and OWL new Part in Future Work clause.