- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:01:53 -0400
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The spec introduces the term "condition" instead of using the more appropriate term "constraint" on the grounds that other proposals for something else. There is no requirement to be compatible with other proposals since in the end we will have one spec and can use the best terms. It would be clearer if "constraint" was used. The spec uses the term "shape" to stand for only a part of what is normally called a shape. The spec uses "shape" to mean something similar to an assertion, i.e. the opposite of a violation. The spec uses the term "scope" to mean something similar to a precondition. These terms are visible in the RDF vocabulary, so we should pick terms that typical users will understand. -- Arthur
Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 20:02:19 UTC