ISSUE-92 [Was: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015]

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-10-08 05:53-0700]
> ISSUE-92
> 
> The proposals for resolving ISSUE-92 suggest that repeated constraints on the
> same property be considered as "additive".  I do not feel that there is much
> evidence to support the need for this reading.  In particular, the example in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0107.html
> does not need an additive reading as there is no overlap between the two sets
> of possible values - all that is needed are qualified cardinality constraints
> and a cleanup on constraints to generalize node-based constraints.  A proposal
> for this cleanup is described in ISSUE-98.  I vote for this approach and
> against the other approaches.

The use cases presented in the issue had nothing to do with overlap
between two sets of values. The proposal in ISSUE-98 does not address
the DC experience with repeated constraints as described in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/20150918125342.GJ19956@w3.org>. If viewed as a
usability issue, the point about intersection in the values is a red
herring.

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 13:39:09 UTC