[data-shapes] deciding between `pathValues` and `pathValue`, and `focusNode` and `focusNodes` (#529)

TallTed has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes:

== deciding between `pathValues` and `pathValue`, and `focusNode` and `focusNodes` ==
_Originally posted by @TallTed in https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/525#discussion_r2301180629_

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/59d8c1a5f040c233856a6d7f92882a684764a600/shacl12-node-expr/index.html#L862-L863

>> [@TallTed] I think this may be the root of the difference between `pathValues` and `pathValue`. "zero or one values" leads to the troublesomely indeterminate expansion of "zero values or one value". `zero pathValues` reads better than `zero pathValue`, while `one pathValue` reads better than `one pathValues`. (`no pathValue` and `no pathValues` both read OK.)
>> 
>> It's too bad parentheses are problematic in predicate identifiers, e.g., `shnex:pathValue(s)` and "zero or one value(s)". I think these might be acceptable to all, and perhaps the problems are small enough to likewise accept.
>> 
>> Similar discussion applies to `focus node`, `focus nodes`, and `focus node(s)`.
> 
> [@HolgerKnublauch] I am usually in favor of singular names for RDF properties, so (has) child over children. But here this is similar to sh:values which also produces multiple values as a list. I hope I can proceed here, as this has two approvals now and other branches are waiting for this change. If you still feel this issue is critical enough, feel free to open a new ticket.

This might be quickly closed, depending on the answer to my next question:

Do these "produce multiple values as a list" along the lines of —
```turtle
ex:entity
    sh:values "value1, value2, value3" .
``` 
— or (what I've been thinking) along the lines of —
```turtle
ex:entity
    sh:values "value1" , 
              "value2" , 
              "value3" .
``` 

I think no-one will argue with me whether both are lists.

In the latter case, I will continue to push strongly for the singular identifiers.

In the former case, I will work to accept the plural identifier though I still believe the singular identifier is better.

(This has arisen in other contexts, particularly `schema:keywords`, which is indeterminately documented, and has led to *some* users having `"keyword 1, keyword 2, keyword 3"` and *other* users having `"keyword 1", "keyword 2", "keyword 3"`. Imagine the frustration that ensues downstream, when someone tries to merge these two graphs, and instead of having them collapse perfectly into 3 triples or 1 triple, depending on their own preconception, finds that they have *four* triples each with a unique values for the `schema:keywords` predicate!)

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/529 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2025 21:34:06 UTC