Re: Editing examples

Yes, this is very true. Having realistic names and examples would be very

The realistic examples currently in the spec now use the issue management
system. Having all examples use the same vocabulary and the subject matter
would improve understandability and provide a consistent way to introduce
the reader to different constraints. Issue management is rich enough area
to support most of examples - assuming it is expanded as needed. For
example, LessThanConstraint could be illustrated using openDate and


On 9/25/15, 4:39 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <> wrote:

>I support your proposal to use realistic examples, although they
>should also be kept brief so they are  easy to understand. We should
>avoid completely generic names, or nonsense names like foo and bar.
>The WG requires that all language features be justified by real-world
>use cases, so there should be no problem in finding names that
>illustrate each language feature. For example, to illustrate the
>predicate pair LessThanConstraint, birthDate and deathDate are
>-- Arthur
>On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Karen Coyle <> wrote:
>> As I think I have mentioned before, I feel that many of the current
>> are perhaps overly brief and may be hard to read for many people. I
>> like to suggest that we at least approximate real examples "to the
>> possible", using terms that may be familiar to readers.
>> Looking at the Linked Open Vocabularies[1] list of vocabularies, the top
>> four, based on use, are:
>> DCterms
>> DCelements
>> The actual use of these is better understood via the statistics on term
>> use.[2]
>> I would be happy to contribute new examples for the (very few) examples
>> I understand, but if I can get some help with understanding what is
>>there I
>> will be able to do even more.
>> If anyone thinks this needs to be an "issue" please let me know.
>> kc
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 26 September 2015 18:26:44 UTC