- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:38:44 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 04/11/2016 06:19 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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 > Not at all. This is a much more consistent syntax than the current one. Everything is a shape. Tools only have to look for shapes. peter
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 01:39:17 UTC