reformat and added sh:info's #366
Conversation
| @@ -19,252 +19,641 @@ | |||
| reg:DatacatalogShape | |||
| a sh:NodeShape ; | |||
| sh:targetClass schema:DataCatalog ; | |||
| rdfs:label "Datacatalogus"@nl, "Data catalog"@en ; | |||
| rdfs:comment "Een datacatalogus bestaat uit een set van datasetbeschrijvingen"@nl, "A data catalog consists of a set of dataset descriptions"@en ; | |||
| sh:name "Datacatalogus"@nl, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you change rdfs:label to sh:name? This is not documented in the PR’s description. Examples in the SHACL specs use rdfs:label too.
| # Required properties | ||
| reg:SchemaDatasetProperty, | ||
| # | ||
| # Required properties |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tabs again. 😒
Just having one comment line looks fine. Why do we need three?
| sh:path schema:license ; | ||
| sh:nodeKind sh:IRIOrLiteral ; | ||
| sh:minCount 1 ; | ||
| sh:message "Het wordt aangeraden om, indien aanwezig en bekend, een licentie op te nemen."@nl, | ||
| "It is recommended to include a license, if present and known."@en ; | ||
| sh:severity sh:Info ;. |
| "It is recommended to include a license, if present and known."@en ; | ||
| sh:severity sh:Info ;. | ||
|
|
||
| reg:SchemaDatasetLicensePropertyMax |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you split this into two properties? Again, not explained in the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In terms of maintainability, I really don’t like the duplicated constraints for min and max. They make violation messages only marginally clearer. I think we can achieve the same with a single constraint and improved wording, for example ’a dataset must include exactly one license’.
|
For a minimal example of |
Note: tests have not been adjested for sh:info's