Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes

• From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:02:50 +1000
• To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <5620147A.5060507@topquadrant.com>

I believe having a way to specify unbounded maxCount and open shapes in 
RDF triples is unnecessary and has more costs than benefits. We should 
keep the language consistent - if nothing is stated then nothing is 
constrained. If we do such defaults for maxCount then the same would be 
expected for all other constraint types. However, other syntaxes and 
user interface tools may display this information, i.e. your option 3).

Proposal: Close ISSUE-102 stating that no changes to the RDF data model 
of SHACL are done but other languages such as a Compact Syntax may 
include things like [0..*]

Holger

Received on Thursday, 15 October 2015 21:03:32 UTC