Since you used the same URIs for conformsTo in dcat:DataService as you used in dcat:Dataset, by declaring these URIs and dct:Standard once, the SHACL shapes stop complaining about it. However, here I have the same concern: On a dcat:DataService, dct:conformsTo should be used to indicate a standard, specification, or profile that the data service itself conforms to.
So, if the described resource is the API / data service, then dct:conformsTo should name the API standard or service specification, such as an OGC API standard, OpenAPI-described profile, INSPIRE download service spec, or another technical/service standard that the API actually follows. The values should be non-literal resources of type dct:Standard.
That is why your current use looks semantically questionable: using dct:conformsTo on the dcat:DataService to point to DCAT 3 or DCAT-AP says, in effect, “this API conforms to the DCAT metadata vocabulary/profile,” when those are mainly metadata description standards, not necessarily the operational standard of the API itself. Can you please give me more details about the API specification used, so I can provide an example on how to better represent it?
Since you used the same URIs for conformsTo in dcat:DataService as you used in dcat:Dataset, by declaring these URIs and dct:Standard once, the SHACL shapes stop complaining about it. However, here I have the same concern: On a dcat:DataService, dct:conformsTo should be used to indicate a standard, specification, or profile that the data service itself conforms to.
So, if the described resource is the API / data service, then dct:conformsTo should name the API standard or service specification, such as an OGC API standard, OpenAPI-described profile, INSPIRE download service spec, or another technical/service standard that the API actually follows. The values should be non-literal resources of type dct:Standard.
That is why your current use looks semantically questionable: using dct:conformsTo on the dcat:DataService to point to DCAT 3 or DCAT-AP says, in effect, “this API conforms to the DCAT metadata vocabulary/profile,” when those are mainly metadata description standards, not necessarily the operational standard of the API itself. Can you please give me more details about the API specification used, so I can provide an example on how to better represent it?