- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:22:30 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/03/2016 13:28, Karen Coyle wrote: > > 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. It's not specific to sh:class. The only real question here is whether we want special syntactic sugar for a case where a property such as sh:class shows up twice for the same context. The price of this syntactic sugar is that no constraint type can take more than one parameter (such as sh:pattern/sh:flags) because otherwise it would not be clear which combination of values belong together. I do not believe this price is worth paying, as the case is not common, and easy work-arounds already exist. Holger
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 04:23:09 UTC