W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core]

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
Message-ID: <570C51A4.4000707@gmail.com>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC