Re: sh:maxCount 0

On 10/2/15 6:00 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>    sh:maxCount 0
>    sh:maxCount -1
> according to the definition(s) in 3.1.5.  Why single out 0 as needing special
> treatment as it is in no way special?


Because min 0 means that there is no minimum, but max 0 does not mean 
that there is no maximum. Now, that may not be the way it works out 
mathematically, but that's a logical way to say it in words. And I have 
no idea what should be expected with max -n, but if it doesn't lead to a 
meaningful operation within the context of SHACL then a user might 
expect it to be flagged as an error.

kc
-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 14:14:01 UTC