Re: ISSUE-234: Started wiki page for response

The response looks good to me.

Kind regards,
Pano

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> I have updated the definition of "validation":
>
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/af5aedc5d3d0b669b916757423ee5f330a2c8800
>
> This is another attempt to address the ongoing issue that we are defining
> SHACL too procedurally, and gave the impression that all validation results
> MUST be produced at all times. The main change is that validation is defined
> to be a *mapping* between some input and validation results. I had already
> updated the definitions of components such as sh:node and sh:not to use the
> term "conformance checking" instead of validation, and added prose to make
> it super-clear that the results produced by such "nested" checking do not
> end up in the report.
>
> I have also started to replace the formulation "... a validation result MUST
> be produced..." with "... there is a validation result...". So far I have
> only updated sh:class, because I would like to get your feedback on whether
> this a formulation that is both readable and "mathematically" acceptable.
>
> My overall goal remains to produce a spec for SHACL that doesn't cause the
> readers to reject it as some rather theoretical gibberish.
>
> Comments welcome,
> Holger
>
>
>
> On 27/02/2017 16:20, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>> I have started a (long) wiki page to prepare the WG response to Peter's
>> latest list of comments:
>>
>>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-234
>>
>> IMHO most issues were quite easy to address, many did not require changes
>> at all, some were essentially a matter of taste, others were already
>> discussed. So although he had indeed found some more glitches I very much
>> disagree with Peter's assessment that substantial changes are required. In
>> fact I believe this commit addresses most of the things that he reported:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/28f40d46efe714ebe9f1909f82e3fd84172dc447
>>
>> I would like to discuss this on Wednesday and would appreciate input on
>> topics 36 and 37. Also, I would appreciate a review of my changes to the
>> textual definitions of sh:not, sh:and, sh:or, sh:xone, sh:node and
>> sh:qualifiedValueShape, which have been switched to use "conformance"
>> instead of "validation results". This helps avoid some of the complications
>> related to producing nested values as it makes it clearer that implementers
>> are not forced to produce nested values at all.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 March 2017 20:31:24 UTC