Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84

Will this also be used for lists of one value? I ask because I was 
noticing that the current draft has sh:hasValue as well as 
sh:allowedValues, even though logically a list of one is ... one. It 
would make sense to me that if there is only one possible value (which 
doesn't sound to me like a common case, but perhaps it is in other 
environments) users would not have to use a different property. That's a 
decision/switch that a program can make for the user.

kc

On 10/16/15 7:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> It basically means that the node must be *member of* the given list.
> When used via sh:constraint (as below) it means that all nodes where the
> shape applies to must be members of this set - if the shape is validated
> against ex:Blue then a violation is fired. When used via sh:property
> this means that all values must be members of the list.
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 10/17/15 10:42 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Sorry, I've forgotten what we said "in" means - one of? any of?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 10/15/15 1:55 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Following today's resolution on ISSUE-98, I propose to close ISSUE-84
>>> using sh:in, e.g.
>>>
>>> ex:TrafficLightColors
>>>      a sh:Shape ;
>>>      sh:constraint [
>>>          sh:in (ex:Green ex:Red ex:Yellow)
>>>      ] .
>>>
>>> I also suspect we may now close ISSUE-88 using the node constraints from
>>> ISSUE-98, but this would need to be confirmed by Jose.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 17 October 2015 19:31:47 UTC