Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4

On 3/10/16 5:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> In my proposal this would be
>>    ex:foo a sh:Shape ;
>>     sh:property ( ex:guru [ sh:class ex:Person; sh:class ex:Preacher ]
>> ) .
>> The current syntax results in shapes that are harder to analyze by tools.
> No, the tools will have to do even more work in your case, because there
> are more syntax variations to express the same thing (in your approach,
> multiple fillers may exist, but also sh:and and now multiple sh:class
> directly).
> Furthermore, it is trivial to pick certain cases to support your case.
> We need to look at the big picture, and many different examples. I would
> consider the case of "Person and teacher" to be not very common, but
> others will of course disagree and make the claim it's critical. So how
> would anyone decide that? It will always be subjective.

Is this construct specific only to sh:class? from the examples in 
proposal 4 it seems to be more general, so perhaps more examples are needed.


Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 03:29:04 UTC