# SHACL: A Description Logic in Disguise

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06096 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.06096/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2021.

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Fixpoint Semantics for Recursive SHACL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.08285/) (2021)
- [From Shapes to Shapes: Inferring SHACL Shapes for Results of SPARQL CONSTRUCT Queries (Extended Version)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08509/) (2024)
- [Shape Expressions with Inheritance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24299/) (2025)
- [Representing Normative Regulations in OWL DL for Automated Compliance Checking Supported by Text Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05951/) (2025)
- [SHACL Validation under Graph Updates (Extended Paper)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00137/) (2025)
- [Transforming Shape Schemas with Composable Property-Graph Queries (Extended Version)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.14309/) (2026)
- [Type Checking Project Haystack Grids using JSON Schema and Pydantic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24891/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

SHACL is a W3C-proposed language for expressing structural constraints on RDF graphs. In recent years, SHACL's popularity has risen quickly. This rise in popularity comes with questions related to its place in the semantic web, particularly about its relation to OWL (the de facto standard for expressing ontological information on the web) and description logics (which form the formal foundations of OWL). We answer these questions by arguing that SHACL is in fact a description logic. On the one hand, our answer is surprisingly simple, some might even say obvious. But, on the hand, our answer is also controversial. By resolving this issue once and for all, we establish the field of description logics as the solid formal foundations of SHACL.