W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2016

Re: UC10

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:37:03 -0700
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <05d7f294-7631-d710-f0b9-15f2646c11c8@kcoyle.net>
Thanks, Vladimir. I'm not sure if we'll be able to resolve this to 
everyone's satisfaction because it comes from a "user story"[1] provided 
by someone who is no longer active in the group. Perhaps the best 
solution would be to remove some of the confusing details, but still 
have the use case be about both qualified cardinality and default 
values. I am quite sure that the details have not influenced the 
development of SHACL.

kc (one of the UCR editors)
[1] 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S10:_card_.3E.3D_0

On 8/2/16 10:41 AM, Vladimir Alexiev wrote:
> Several comments about
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/#uc10-cardinality-0:
> - the code Example should mention it's in OWL Manchester notation
> - second bullet "at least one of them should be known to be a
> VotingShareholder":
>   maybe I don't understand OWL qualified cardinality, but doesn't "min 0"
> mean there can be 0 VotingShareholders?
> - Summary: I don't understand how any of the 2 sentences follow from the
> example.
> 1. "Requires the possibility to select focus nodes based on specific
> conditions"
>   Just doesn't seem to have a connection.
> 2. "Requires the possibility to specify default values."
>   I guess a default VotingShareholder (if there possibly can be such a
> thing) could fulfill a "min 1" cardinality, bu t
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 01:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:43 UTC