On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > On 5/22/2015 16:41, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > >> I suggest we turn sh:Error, sh:Warn, ... to owl individuals and connect >> them to the result with a property like sh:severity >> > > I have not yet understood why you prefer them to be instances. Let's try > again. I believe classes would be cleaner because then we can more > transparently add different properties that may only be relevant for that > subclass. Why would it be better to have > > [ > rdf:type sh:Result ; > sh:severity sh:Error ; > ] > > If you can model a clean way of having other types of results e.g. shx:AggregatedResult (that also need severity) and sh:ConstraintViolation both as subclasses of sh:Result with sh:Error, etc as classes I would be happy to accept it. > This feels redundant to me - there can only be one value for severity > anyway, so we would save one triple and get the inheritance relationship > for free. Furthermore sh:Error may have sh:fix while sh:Info may not, and > this is best expressed via classes IMHO. > > Thanks, > Holger > > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://http://aligned-project.eu Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 08:10:58 UTC