- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:41:01 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Holger, I'm fine with the changes. The term "datatype" will need to be linked to the definitions in the appropriate places -- but that's just a formatting issue. kc On 10/18/16 4:34 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > On 19/10/2016 2:41, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Here are my comments: >> >> 1) >> 1761 The values of <code>sh:datatype</code> must be IRIs >> representing datatypes, such as <code>xsd:string</code> >> >> If datatype were defined in the terminology section as RDF datatypes, >> then this could be simply said as: >> >> "The values of sh:datatype are <link to terminology>datatypes</link...>" >> >> That would remove "representing" which is problematic, and would >> define datatype, which is essential since it is used in the document. > > I have added a definition of "datatype" to the terminology section. > >> >> 2) >> >> 2945 <code>sh:qualifiedValueShape</code> must be accompanied by a >> <code>sh:qualifiedMinCount</code> or a >> <code>sh:qualifiedMaxCount</code>, or both. >> >> To eliminate "accompanied by", it could be stated as: >> >> "For each sh:qualifiedValueShape there must be either one >> sh:qualifiedMinCount or one sh:qualifiedMaxCount, or one >> sh:qualifiedMinCount and one sh:qualifiedMaxCount." >> >> alternate wording (hard to make this elegant) >> >> "For each sh:qualifiedValueShape there must be either one >> sh:qualifiedMinCount or one sh:qualifiedMaxCount, or one of each." > > Ok, I chose your last suggestion. > >> >> 3) >> The statements nearly all use plurals where I could generally use the >> singular, such as: >> >> 2597 The values of <code>sh:lessThanOrEquals</code> must be >> <a>IRIs</a> >> >> This is probably a difference in mental models, but I think of a >> property as singular in a triple with a single object. Perhaps >> thinking of it more as a graph it can be a property with multiple >> objects. I haven't found anything in other RDF standards that would >> show a usage pattern. In any case, it probably matters more that the >> document be consistent. > > I checked that they all use plural, so unless I am missing something > it's already consistent. I prefer plural over singular because there can > be multiple values, and it sounds strange to speak about "the value of > <code>...</code>" if no specific subject is given. > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/eb2b55f88d9ef4c085a55a3b33b4e8f9c330d63e > > > Thanks > Holger > > > >> >> kc >> >> On 10/17/16 9:07 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of >>> parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191 >>> >>> Raised by: Holger Knublauch >>> On product: SHACL Spec >>> >>> In the currently published draft of the spec, each parameter of the >>> core vocabulary is annotated with a column "Value type" that carries >>> no meaning. Peter also stated that some of these value types are >>> rather unhelpful: >>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Oct/0059.html >>> >>> I think we should do a proper job here and make the value types more >>> useful, making SHACL more predictable. The Value types column should >>> be deleted and instead the TEXTUAL DEFINITION of each component >>> should enumerate constraints on these values. Shapes graphs that >>> violate these constraints are invalid. >>> >>> I have made these changes to the draft and would like the WG to >>> review them: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02 >>> >>> >>> My proposal is to approve these changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 03:41:39 UTC