Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84

My understanding is that sh:hasValue is different from sh:allowedValues.

The first says that a value must be present among the property values.  The
second says that all property values must belong to the allowed values.

peter


On 10/17/2015 12:31 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

Received on Sunday, 18 October 2015 01:18:52 UTC