Re: Naming of cardinality properties

I am not sure how to best conclude on these naming discussions, so I 
created a quick Wiki page where people could cast their votes:

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names

Anyone please feel free to edit the page to add more options that I 
forgot. I already took sh:datatype for granted, so if anyone disagrees 
with that name, please add a vote on that.

I hope we can conclude on this topic for the next meeting so that we can 
make progress on the test cases.

Thanks,
Holger


On 3/28/2015 0:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
> +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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 03:36:28 UTC