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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:22:44 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56EACBC4.9010106@gmail.com>
On 03/16/2016 01:54 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I regard these as set-operators.
> sh:equals: both sets must be equal
> sh:notEquals: both sets must not be equal, i.e. there are nodes outside of
> either set
> sh:lessThan: all values of set1 must be < all values of set2
> sh:hasValue: the set must include a given value
> Holger

I don't see that there can be any other choice for sh:equals, sh:notEquals,
and sh:hasValue.

sh:lessThan could also be some value of set1 must be < some value of set2, but
the current definition seems better.

Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 15:23:15 UTC

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