- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:21:17 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 4/4/15 2:50 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > OK. So now the ToC reads: > > - Property Constraints > - Disjunctive Constraints > > which isn't a logical division of the concepts. If you have a > high-level "property constraints" then for readability you should have > a high-level for whatever is not "property constraints". In other > words, the document's high level needs to exhibit a logical division > of the topic. I'd be happy to have another headline, yet sh:OrConstraint is currently the only instance of this category, and I don't think we'll add more of its kind. Other vocabularies will certainly define more. In the absence of better suggestions they could be labeled "Other Shape Constraints". To flatten the structure, maybe it would make sense to push 3.1 up into 3 and 3.2 into 4, leading to 3. Property Constraints 4. Inverse Property Constraints 5. Other Shape Constraints because they also correspond to different keywords - sh:property, sh:inverseProperty and sh:constraint. Holger
Received on Saturday, 4 April 2015 00:21:49 UTC