Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec]

The current votes on this are

DK: sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, sh:count
HK: sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, sh:count
HS: sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, sh:count
SSt: sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, (sh:count || sh:exactCount)
KC: sh:minOccurs, sh:maxOccurs (no count)
RC: sh:minOccurs, sh:maxOccurs > minCount, maxCount > the rest.

PROPOSAL: Based on the votes at 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names#Cardinality the 
SHACL core vocabulary should use the properties sh:minCount, sh:maxCount 
and sh:count to represent cardinalities.

Holger


On 4/7/15 3:42 PM, Simon Steyskal wrote:
> That's why I have suggested "sh:exactCount"
>
> (I only preferred "-count" variations over "-cardinality" out of 
> pragmatism, but ofc I would be fine with "-cardinality" too)
>
> simon
>
> ---
> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>
> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>
> Am 2015-04-07 04:13, schrieb Karen Coyle:
>> OK, I see that OWL has ObjectExactCardinality. However, many
>> programming languages as well as SQL have something called "count"
>> which is a function that counts the number of occurrences of
>> something. So,
>>
>> 1. that OWL has this feature does not make it a commonly used feature
>> in the IT world
>> 2. the name "count" is going to be horribly confusing
>>
>> If this must exist, then a name closer to "exactCardinality" is called
>> for. "Count" is not going to be ok.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 4/6/15 6:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> A hypothetical property sh:count in addition to sh:minCount and
>>> sh:maxCount would be equivalent to OWL having owl:cardinality in
>>> addition to owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality. From the current
>>> state of
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names
>>>
>>> it looks like there is a slight majority in favor of adding such a 
>>> third
>>> property. We need to keep in mind that a lot of people edit Turtle/JSON
>>> files by hand, so although I am working for a company specializing in
>>> editing tools, we cannot really rely on interactive tools to create the
>>> min/max statements for us. Having said this, there is also an argument
>>> to be made against having multiple ways to state the same thing, so I
>>> don't really have a strong opinion either way.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/5/2015 4:29, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> I'm not familiar with any prior use of "count" to mean "min and max
>>>> cardinalities have the same value." Can anyone enlighten me as to
>>>> where else that is used?
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/15 4:20 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>> shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets
>>>>> [SHACL Spec]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/38
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
>>>>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>>>>
>>>>> See https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names
>>>>>
>>>>> How should the facet properties for cardinalities be called, and do
>>>>> we need a property for min+max count? Please cast your vote on the
>>>>> page linked above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 20:19:58 UTC