- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:32:03 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 10/02/2015 07:13 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > 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 sh:minCount 0 does mean that there is a minimum. It is just that this minimum is trivially met. sh:minCount and sh:maxCount are two different properties that may be used with property constraints. They both constrain the number of values of the property but are otherwise unrelated. There is thus no reason that sh:minCount 0 and sh:maxCount 0 have to behave in any analogous fashion, particularly as sh:minCount is more permissive with smaller arguments in contrast with sh:maxCount which is more constraining with smaller arguments. peter
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 14:32:35 UTC