- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 18:18:23 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
My understanding is that sh:hasValue is different from sh:allowedValues. The first says that a value must be present among the property values. The second says that all property values must belong to the allowed values. peter On 10/17/2015 12:31 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2015 01:18:52 UTC