Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints?

On 9/13/15 11:50 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Karen,
> I believe the constraints in Holger's email are for comparing object
> values of triples with the same subject and two different
> predicates.

Do they have to be different predicates? That wasn't clear to me. If so, 
then there is another use case for comparisons with the same predicate.

> What constraints are you taking about?
> Those for the same subjects or for different subjects (such as two
> resources can't have the same pref label)?

My use case was the one I gave in my example - same predicate but 
different values.

> If it is for the same subject and the idea is to say that the values
> for prop1, prop2, prop3, ..., propN must be all the same or all
> different, then may be it could accomplished with Equal and NotEqual
> constraints by allowing an arbitrary number of arguments.

And my question was: does this only operate on pairs? As I recall from 
the meeting last week, these constraints were described as operating on 
pairs only. That's what I'm responding to. I may have remembered wrong.

There is still the question of order for > and <.

> Then, bringing in the language tag consideration is another story - I
> would think this requires another, somewhat different set of
> constraints.
> If it is about different subjects, then I think this is yet another
> set of constraints.
> The more situations we will try to cover, the larger the language
> grows. In theory not an issue, perhaps, but in practice it is - as
> this becomes too big of a task for a small number of active working
> group participants to identify, name, design, discuss, implement,
> etc. Thus, a suggestion to put some basics in place and to enable the
> extended community to build and socialize additional constraints.

These ARE basics. It sounds like you are saying "Don't bring up any more 
use cases" but I don't accept this. If the standard doesn't respond to 
very common use cases, it cannot succeed.


> Irene
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Sep 13, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Karen Coyle <>
>> wrote:
>> I agree that the SKOS rules go beyond my previous example, and we
>> do have a use case that requires the ability to follow the rules
>> inherent in SKOS. Since this is a common case, we should probably
>> detail it and make sure that it is covered. However, the point was
>> to ask what happens to comparisons that are >2, and to point out
>> that sometimes that number can be large, such as where different
>> language versions are used, since the actual number of potential
>> languages (cf. Wikipedia) is in the hundreds, at least.
>> kc
>>> On 9/13/15 10:52 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: Thus, the appropriate
>>> constraint is the one on cardinality (max 1), but it needs to
>>> take into account language tag.
>>> If one was to follow this line of thinking, in addition to
>>> regular cardinality constraints, there would need to be
>>> cardinality constraints within a language.
>> -- Karen Coyle m:
>> 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Sunday, 13 September 2015 12:45:37 UTC