Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84

Karen,

I'll edit the text to make it clearer.

-- Arthur

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Thanks, Holger. The difference wasn't clear to me in the spec. For now, the
> definitions are:
>
> sh:hasValue: The property sh:hasValue can be used to verify that the focus
> node has a given RDF node among the values of the given predicate.
>
> sh:allowedValues: The property sh:allowedValues can be used to enumerate the
> values a property can have. When specified, the value of the given property
> must be members of the specified set.
>
> With some hindsight I see the meanings, but I must say it possibly could be
> clearer. Also "value... must be members... set" has some mixing of singular
> and plural that makes it harder to understand. Is there some reason why we
> can't say what you say below? (Maybe Arthur could add this to his edits?)
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/17/15 5:10 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>> The difference is that sh:hasValue is *existential*, i.e. the property
>> must have the given value but it may also have others that are no
>> enumerated. On the other hand, sh:in is *exclusive*, i.e. no other
>> values than the enumerated ones are permitted.
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 10/18/15 5:31 AM, 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>

Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 19:45:24 UTC