Re: question about the term "scope"

Hello James and thank you for your feedback,

The WG will provide a formal reply to your comments after it is discussed
in one of the following weekly telcos.
As an informal comment & based on the definitions of the current draft

 the term itself is intended to characterize a triple


The term in-scope is not intended to characterize a triple but a node
"the scope of a shape defines which (RDF) nodes in the data graph are
in-scope for that shape" so it is a relation between a Shape and Set of
nodes and define which RDF nodes the shape can "see"
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#dfn-scope

why do you not use a term which better connotes that that meaning


We did try in the past to come up with a better terms for scoping,
filtering & focus nodes without success, I am sure the WG will consider any
new suggestions

Best regards,
Dimitris

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:

> good morning;
>
> the term “in-scope” appears frequently in the current draft[1] where its
> definition and usage run contrary to the meaning which is customarily
> associated with the word[2].
> if your intent is to produce a document which is accessible and readily
> understood, if the term itself is intended to characterize a triple, rather
> than the relation between a name and lexical entity, and its usage involves
> computing the subset of a graph, why do you not use a term which better
> connotes that that meaning?
>
> best regards, from berlin,
> —
> [1] : http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160530/
> [2] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)
>
>
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT