- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:43:01 +0200
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Holger, my basic reaction is that the term "Constraint" on all of them is awkward, and the constraints should just be: Equal, NotEqual, LessThan, LessThanOrEqual That's because the question is whether the values are equal, not whether the constraints are equal. However, I'm curious how the latter two will be implemented since they imply an order between the two values. It also seems that this mechanism assumes that there will always be two different predicates to compare, and I'm not sure that this is the case. For example, for the SKOS-related case, where you want to say that you cannot have two skos:prefLabels with the same value (including language code), a common instance example is: <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="fr">sabliers</skos:prefLabel> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">sandglasses</skos:prefLabel> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="es">reloj de arena</skos:prefLabel> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="nl">zandlopers</skos:prefLabel> and more often having many more languages. How will this be handled? kc On 9/10/15 6:35 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Could a native speaker please let me know if any of the following names > sound "funny" and how they should be replaced, keeping in mind > consistency and compactness? > > - EqualConstraint (EqualTo? Equals?) > - NotEqualConstraint > - LessThanConstraint (LessConstraint?) > - LessThanOrEqualConstraint (LessThanOrEqualToConstraint?) > > Example usage: > > ex:MyShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:constraint [ > a sh:EqualConstraint ; > sh:predicate1 ex:property1 ; > sh:predicate2 ex:property2 ; > ] > . > > Thanks > Holger > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2015 06:43:33 UTC