Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints?

On 9/14/15 2:43 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> In my current work they look like
>
> ex:MyShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:constraint [
>          a sh:LessThanConstraint ;
>          sh:predicate1 ex:property1 ;
>          sh:predicate2 ex:property2 ;
>      ]
> .
>
> i.e. the ordering is defined by being predicate1 or predicate2.

OK. So "sh:predicate1" is an actual predicate name. But of course 
"property1" is not probably an actual property name. It would be more 
readable to do an example where the instance properties are something 
that make sense, like:

ex:MyShape
     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:constraint [
         a sh:LessThanConstraint ;
         sh:predicate1 ex:birthDate ;
         sh:predicate2 ex:deathDate ;
     ]
.

or

sh:predicate1 ex:startTime ;
sh:predicate2 ex:endTime ;

I often have trouble telling which names are "real" and which are made 
up in the examples because of how the examples read, so I would suggest 
making examples that are more real, which would help readability. I know 
that "sh:" should always be a real property name, but this is where 
naming becomes important for clarity. "property1/2" unfortunately looks 
a lot like "predicate1/2" in terms of "fictiveness."

Perhaps this is something that Arthur could look at in his review - and 
since it's my idea I volunteer to help wherever I can.

kc
-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 14 September 2015 05:53:04 UTC