- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:31:16 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Will this also be used for lists of one value? I ask because I was noticing that the current draft has sh:hasValue as well as sh:allowedValues, even though logically a list of one is ... one. It would make sense to me that if there is only one possible value (which doesn't sound to me like a common case, but perhaps it is in other environments) users would not have to use a different property. That's a decision/switch that a program can make for the user. kc On 10/16/15 7:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > It basically means that the node must be *member of* the given list. > When used via sh:constraint (as below) it means that all nodes where the > shape applies to must be members of this set - if the shape is validated > against ex:Blue then a violation is fired. When used via sh:property > this means that all values must be members of the list. > > Holger > > > On 10/17/15 10:42 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Sorry, I've forgotten what we said "in" means - one of? any of? >> >> kc >> >> On 10/15/15 1:55 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> Following today's resolution on ISSUE-98, I propose to close ISSUE-84 >>> using sh:in, e.g. >>> >>> ex:TrafficLightColors >>> a sh:Shape ; >>> sh:constraint [ >>> sh:in (ex:Green ex:Red ex:Yellow) >>> ] . >>> >>> I also suspect we may now close ISSUE-88 using the node constraints from >>> ISSUE-98, but this would need to be confirmed by Jose. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 17 October 2015 19:31:47 UTC