"property values"

There are 6 instances of the use of "property values" in the SHACL spec. 
 From my research, I do not believe that RDF supports the concept that 
properties have values (unlike, for example, key/value pair models). The 
object of a triple may have a literal value, but that is not what is 
intended here.

Here are my suggestions for changes, in the order in which they appear 
in the document:

1 Now reads in the terminology section:
"Property Values and Paths
The values of (or for) a property p for a node n in an RDF graph are the 
objects of the triples in the graph that have n as subject and p as 
predicate."

This could become "Object nodes" but in fact I think that "node n" here 
is referring to the subject node? Not sure. I would define "object 
nodes" and "property paths" separately, and the latter definition could 
be copied from SPARQL. In fact, it might be good to reference the SPARQL 
documentation at this point.

2 Now reads:
"Some of the property constraints specify multiple constraint components 
in order to restrict multiple aspects of the property values."

I have no idea what "multiple aspects of the property values" means 
here. I think this sentence and the two that follow it should be changed 
to something like:
"There can be multiple constraints directed at a single node."

3&4 drop

5 now reads:
"It is a common scenario that certain property values are derived from 
other values. "

In the RDF documentation, "value" is used exclusively with literals. If 
this is the case here, then it may be appropriate to refer to "literals" 
or "literal nodes" (which by definition includes only object nodes) 
rather than property values.

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

Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 21:57:14 UTC