- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:19:58 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 12/04/2016 11:16, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > On 04/11/2016 06:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > [...] >> If we were to merge shapes and constraints and drop sh:constraint, how could >> people express different severities, e.g.? >> >> ex:MyShape >> a sh:Shape ; >> sh:constraint [ >> sh:closed true ; >> sh:severity sh:Warning ; >> ] ; >> sh:constraint [ >> sh:stem "http://aldi.de/" ; >> # default severity is sh:Error >> ] . >> > Quite simply. > > ex:MyShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:shape [ > sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ; > sh:severity sh:Warning ; > ] ; > sh:stem "http://aldi.de/" . > # default severity is sh:Violation > This is a very inconsistent syntax. Tools and algorithms would need to look for two different cases for every constraint. For example, writing SPARQL queries that walk through shape definitions becomes much harder. Holger
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 01:20:32 UTC