Re: Clarifying word

I think it is quite simple:

* A SHACL shape is an instance of sh:Shape. A shape points to constraints
(or conditions) an RDF node is compared against to determine if it conforms
to the shape. For example, a shape example:Issue may point to two
constraints: one that says that the property example:submitter must have
exactly one value and the value must be a string and one that says that the
property example:submissionDate must have exactly one value and the value
must be a date.
* When an RDF node conforms to conditions specified by a shape it is said to
be valid against a shape.
* A shape can also define what RDF nodes are to be validated (checked for
conformance) against it. This is called a scope of a shape. When a shape
doesn¹t specify a scope, its scope is any RDF node.
The specification also uses the following terminology:
* RDF graph containing shapes is called ³shapes graph².
* RDF graph containing data to be checked for conformance (validated) is
called ³data graph².
* When examples talk about specific nodes that are being checked against a
shape, they use a term ³focus node².
* A report produced as a result of checking RDF data against the relevant
shapes is called a "validation report".


Irene Polikoff, CEO
TopQuadrant, Inc. www.topquadrant.com <http://www.topquadrant.com/>
Technology providers making enterprise information meaningful
Blogs ‹ http://www.topquadrant.com/the-semantic-ecosystems-journal/,
http://www.topquadrant.com/composing-the-semantic-web/
LinkedIn ‹ https://www.linkedin.com/company/topquadrant
Twitter - https://twitter.com/topquadrant





On 4/16/16, 4:49 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> I decided to take Peter's request that more people read through the
> document, figuring that I would only be able to do a portion of it
> before it got over my head. However, I haven't gotten very far due to
> what I presume is some of that lack of consistency that Peter has mentioned.
> 
> The introduction (1.) has these sentences:
> 
> "SHACL groups descriptive information and constraints that apply to a
> given data node into shapes. This document defines what it means for an
> RDF graph, referred to as the "data graph", to conform to a graph
> containing SHACL shapes, referred to as the "shapes graph"."
> 
> "A shape may include a scope which defines which nodes in the data graph
> must conform to it. When a data node is checked for conformance to a
> shape, that node is referred to as the focus node. The output of the
> validation process is a validation report which indicates whether or not
> the data graph conforms to the shapes graph."
> 
> In these we have "shapes", "SHACL shapes", "shapes graph", "nodes",
> "data nodes" "focus nodes".
> 
> Shortly thereafter we have "shape definitions", and a "shapes graph that
> defines these constraints has two shapes."
> 
> The main problem is the use of "shape/shapes" some times and "shapes
> graph" at others, with the implication (but not stated) that a "shapes
> graph" can consist of one or more "shapes." However, I'm not sure what a
> shape is in this context, since it is by definition in the form of a graph.
> 
> Note also that the examples in that section consist of multiple graphs,
> that is there is no subject that holds them together. I believe they
> should have a symbolic "top node" that shows that they belong to a
> single graph even though there are subgraphs.
> 
> I'm happy to write alternate text for some of this, but in this case I'm
> not clear on what is intended.
> 
> There are other areas where I can suggest better wording. I'd rather do
> edits in a copy than try to explain them. Would that be ok?
> 
> kc
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 
>