- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:01 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 15/01/2016 9:02 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > As I am trying to implement the resolution on ISSUE-115 to use the > following syntax > > ex:MyShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:closed true ; > sh:ignoredProperties ( rdf:type ) ; > ... > > I cannot help but think that we may have rushed this decision and have > forgotten a few aspects: > > 1) With the new syntax it is no longer possible to specify > sh:priority, i.e. closeness is always an Error and cannot be a Warning Correction: sh:severity Holger > > 2) With the new syntax we have lost the ability to specify filters so > that closeness only applies to certain instances. The work-around > would be to use different scopes, but that's not the same thing and > would lead to duplicate shape definitions (not user friendly). > > 3) With the new syntax we have lost the ability to abbreviate the > common case of ignoring rdf:type (as above). > > In my proposed syntax, SHACL would have included shortcut resources > (instances of sh:NodeConstraint) so that the syntax would simply be > > ex:MyShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:constraint sh:closed ; > ... > > or > > ex:MyShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:constraint sh:closedIgnoringRDFType ; > ... > > If the main reason for the adoption of Arthur's proposal was a > user-friendly syntax then I believe the syntax above is better. As an > added bonus, it is far more consistent. Currently I would need to > hard-code sh:closed as a special case. > > Sorry to be a pain, but I believe the topic should be reopened, at > least as a quick check whether we are really sure about our resolution. > > Thanks, > Holger >
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:05:37 UTC