Re: Definition of Shape

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.

peter


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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUw83XAAoJECjN6+QThfjzRD4H/ibd6hSulaxhGpe7F5TphyIN
GK14QY6gDmfqdJ2cM3kR7dnbqKsBUexd840f+Xi1MUY6gVr395+sqMcZwIBY6qpi
Wf7eFZYiUvXErVtmzY0/4Zsl/EaJLefyRleiTVfpG2G6X4jN6TZTjWveVNzsMQP/
erBBeCg59dVKJlC6T7k591S3II8sgcbrlqSOxgbkImK+OVUXTIlpGDFIJNHwHfvY
d6XdOofy+70qqiLYounRQcUpHmC3a2Y36VB4Rm0afiz9EmASSr5OZz2T6oACAAD3
OkTD75ILtxGxMsdDoJ55ug012uThttmRuWhZKG43SihqXus6z0YA3KMi7Ugub4k=
=NQoi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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