W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:42:02 -0800
Message-Id: <201603032142.u23Lg8qC010631@d03av05.boulder.ibm.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 03/03/2016 
12:14:55 PM:

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 03/03/2016 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity
> 
> On 03/01/2016 09:20 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/1/16 10:11 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> in a simple extension of the current SHACL RDF syntax this would be
> >>
> >>       [ a sh:propertyConstraint ;
> >>         sh:predicate ex:p ;
> >>         sh:minCount 1 ;
> >>         sh:class ex:c ;
> >>         sh:maxCount 5 ;
> >>         sh:class ex:d ;
> >>         sh:minCount 3 ]
> > 
> > Doesn't this require that there be order among the triples? 
> Otherwise, how do
> > the two minCount's apply to the correct sh:Class triple?
> > 
> > kc
> 
> No.  This is not a qualified cardinality.  What this says is that
> there is at least one value for ex:p, that all values for ex:p belong to 
ex:c,
> that there are at most 5 values for ex:p, that all values for ex:p 
belong to
> ex:d, and that there are at least three values for ex:p.

Ok, but the two minCounts are confusing. The first one (sh:minCount 1) is 
essentially overridden by the second (sh:minCount 3), right? So, why did 
you choose to have them both? What's the significance?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group

> 
> peter
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 21:42:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:30 UTC