W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:08:39 -0700
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <570D71E7.2090806@gmail.com>
I did suggest a change where I thought that a particular word would be better.
 I also asked whether there was some particular role for the current word
being used just in case my analysis was incorrect.

Were I did not understand why a particular wording was being used I asked
whether there were alternative uses of the vocabulary term, which would have
necessitated the wording being used.  There are several vocabulary terms that
have multiple uses, e.g., sh:predicate, which has at least three different
uses and two of them are in constraints.  Without knowing why a wording is
being used I cannot make a suggestion on what wording to use.

peter


On 04/12/2016 02:17 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> I have to agree with Irene on that one. It's always better to make suggestions
> for improvements when reporting problems. If you're not sure what is intended,
> try to propose something that makes sense to you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud
> 
> 
> Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote on 04/08/2016 04:37:51 PM:
> 
>> From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
>> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Holger
>> Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>> Date: 04/08/2016 04:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints):
>> sh:predicate is   used in many constraints but not always available
>> [SHACL - Core]
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I think, it would save a lot of time and effort, if you just recommended
>> the language for the passages. Otherwise, this goes into a lengthy,
>> ineffective and antagonistic loop of ³this is not right, this is an
>> improvement, but still some issues, this is better but not quite Š² and so
>> on.
>>
>> For example, instead of writing
>>
>> Most of the descriptions read strangely.  For example, "The property
>> sh:nodeKind can be used to restrict the node kind of all value nodes."
>> What
>> is the role of "all" here?  The first sentence for sh:class uses "each",
>> which
>> is much better.  Why is there a "can be" there?  Are there alternative
>> validation uses for sh:nodeKind?
>>
>>
>>
>> You could say
>>
>> Please change this passage to:
>>
>> "The property
>> sh:nodeKind is used to restrict the node kind of each value node."
>>
>>
>> Unless there are multiple possible validation uses of sh:nodeKind, ³is² is
>> clearer than ³can be².
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Irene
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/8/16, 2:49 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I assume you are referring to the changes at the beginning of the section
>> >and
>> >subsequent use of "value nodes". I am limiting these comments to parts of
>> >this
>> >bit that are relevant to ISSUE-132.
>> >
>> >There are some problems that probably can be fixed with a little editing.
>> > The
>> >constraint is the node that is the subject of the constraint component
>> >triples.  This means that constraint components are not property
>> >constraints
>> >so the wording in and just before the first bullet list is incorrect.
>> >
>> >What are sh:subject, sh:predicate, and sh:object for node constraints?
>> >
>> >Most of the descriptions read strangely.  For example, "The property
>> >sh:nodeKind can be used to restrict the node kind of all value nodes."
>> >What
>> >is the role of "all" here?  The first sentence for sh:class uses "each",
>> >which
>> >is much better.  Why is there a "can be" there?  Are there alternative
>> >validation uses for sh:nodeKind?
>> >
>> >The textual definition for sh:minCount does not indicate that the number
>> >is
>> >the number for a given focus node.
>> >
>> >Overall this is a decided improvement, and appears to satisfactorily
>> >address
>> >ISSUE-132.
>> >
>> >
>> >When reading through this section I noticed several problems and create
>> >new
>> >issues for them.
>> >
>> >peter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 04/07/2016 11:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> >> I have meanwhile reworked chapter 3 so that it can be understood for
>> >>all three
>> >> contexts. Peter, could you check if this ISSUE-132 is now addressed?
>> >>
>> >> Holger
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 8/03/2016 10:03, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> >>> Yes, this aspect of the spec really needs a thorough update. The whole
>> >>> structure still assumes Property Constraints only. I had been waiting
>> >>>on the
>> >>> resolution to the metamodel before cleaning this generalization up. I
>> >>>had
>> >>> put a red TODO block above the table in 3.1 to clarify this
>> >>>construction site.
>> >>>
>> >>> Note that this chapter is work in progress to implement the resolution
>> >>>to
>> >>> ISSUE-98. In a nutshell, these constraint types can be used either at
>> >>> sh:constraint (to apply to the focus node itself), at sh:property (to
>> >>>apply
>> >>> to all values of a given property), or at sh:inverseProperty (to apply
>> >>>to
>> >>> all inverse values of a given property). Which combinations are
>> >>>supported is
>> >>> summarized in the following table. The flow of the sub-sections needs
>> >>>to be
>> >>> adjusted and generalized accordingly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Holger
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 8/03/2016 9:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> >>>> shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used
>> >>>>in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/132
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>> >>>> On product: SHACL - Core
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The SHACL spec currently defines several constraints, including
>> >>>>sh:class,
>> >>>> with wording like
>> >>>>
>> >>>> **************
>> >>>> A validation result must be produced for each triple that has the
>> >>>>focus node
>> >>>> as its subject, the sh:predicate as its predicate and where ...
>> >>>> **************
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, there might not be any predicate involved at all, for
>> >>>>example where
>> >>>> a sh:class is in a sh:constraint constraint in a shape that is
>> >>>>invoked directly from a scope.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC