{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776/events","html_url":"https://github.com/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776","id":70807431,"number":776,"title":"Enforce cardinality of properties on ActiveFedora::RDFDatastream like it is for ActiveFedora::Base","user":{"login":"afred","id":1507490,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1507490?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred","html_url":"https://github.com/afred","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":14,"created_at":"2015-04-24T22:16:07Z","updated_at":"2015-04-28T15:13:36Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Here's an example https://gist.github.com/afred/35f8f32e5c4905d5d001.\r\n\r\nNot sure if this is by design, but it's confusing to me that they behave differently."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/comments/97101354","html_url":"https://github.com/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776#issuecomment-97101354","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/projecthydra/active_fedora/issues/776","id":97101354,"user":{"login":"afred","id":1507490,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1507490?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred","html_url":"https://github.com/afred","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/afred/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-04-28T15:13:35Z","updated_at":"2015-04-28T15:13:35Z","body":"Is the OM pattern worth staying consistent with? Seems like cardinality constraints would make even more sense for OM, since there _is_ a notion of cardinality in xml.\r\n\r\n(i thought OM supported something like `multiple: false`)"}}