- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:40:19 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
+1 on sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, but to me sh:count doesn't express what it means. I'd leave it off. kc On 3/26/15 11:20 PM, Michel Dumontier wrote: > +1 on sh:minCount, sh:maxCount, and sh:count > > m > > > > > >> On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:05 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> Another question on the vocabulary. Does anyone object to using sh:minCount, sh:maxCount? If so, what would be the alternatives? I personally find sh:minCardinality too long, and sh:minCard too unclear. >> >> Shall we support sh:count as a short-cut for the case where min/maxCount are equal? The main use case of that would be sh:count = 1, and this is quite a common case. On the downside, it adds a bit complexity to the engines as there are multiple ways to state the same thing. >> >> Thanks >> Holger >> >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 14:40:57 UTC