W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Definition of Shape

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:52:39 -0800
Message-ID: <54C3CDD7.4070205@gmail.com>
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
CC: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1

I don't think that it makes sense to interdefine shape and constraint in
this way.  You are using two very useful words (shape and constraint) to
define only part of what needs to be defined.


On 01/23/2015 10:34 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The glossary already contains a stab as this: 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Glossary#Unscoped_Constraint.2FShape
>> Yes, but I think we should have a simple definition of what a Shape is
>> and I think this definition could be it. I also think that in the
>> context of this group we can differentiate between a constraint and a
>> shape, saying that a shape is a set of constraints on some RDF node.
>> Apart from that, we can maintain the definitions of "constraint",
>> "scoped constraint" and "unscoped constraint" which I also think they
>> make sense.
>> Best regards, Jose Labra
> peter
> On 01/23/2015 10:10 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>> I edited the Glossary page to add a possible definition of shape as:
>> "A Shape is a set of constraints over the properties and objects of an 
>> RDF node"
>> I think it is in accordance with the use of the term in the WG and
>> does not enter in conflict with other terms.
>> -- Saludos, Labra
> -- Saludos, Labra
Version: GnuPG v1

Received on Saturday, 24 January 2015 16:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 24 January 2015 16:53:12 UTC