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

Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:23:26 -0800
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56E2F0FE.1060400@kcoyle.net>
The example that I refer to is:

  ex:exampleShape a sh:Shape ;
    ex:example [ ex:predicate ex:p ; ex:lang "de" ; ex:lang "en" ] .

Is this using the same mechanism? (Hmmm. This could be an erroneous 
example, no?)

I'm asking for examples that do not use sh:class, to understand how else 
this might be used. Thanks.

kc

On 3/10/16 8:22 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 16:23:40 UTC

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