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

Clarifying word

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 13:49:32 -0700
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5712A55C.2020905@kcoyle.net>
I decided to take Peter's request that more people read through the 
document, figuring that I would only be able to do a portion of it 
before it got over my head. However, I haven't gotten very far due to 
what I presume is some of that lack of consistency that Peter has mentioned.

The introduction (1.) has these sentences:

"SHACL groups descriptive information and constraints that apply to a 
given data node into shapes. This document defines what it means for an 
RDF graph, referred to as the "data graph", to conform to a graph 
containing SHACL shapes, referred to as the "shapes graph"."

"A shape may include a scope which defines which nodes in the data graph 
must conform to it. When a data node is checked for conformance to a 
shape, that node is referred to as the focus node. The output of the 
validation process is a validation report which indicates whether or not 
the data graph conforms to the shapes graph."

In these we have "shapes", "SHACL shapes", "shapes graph", "nodes", 
"data nodes" "focus nodes".

Shortly thereafter we have "shape definitions", and a "shapes graph that 
defines these constraints has two shapes."

The main problem is the use of "shape/shapes" some times and "shapes 
graph" at others, with the implication (but not stated) that a "shapes 
graph" can consist of one or more "shapes." However, I'm not sure what a 
shape is in this context, since it is by definition in the form of a graph.

Note also that the examples in that section consist of multiple graphs, 
that is there is no subject that holds them together. I believe they 
should have a symbolic "top node" that shows that they belong to a 
single graph even though there are subgraphs.

I'm happy to write alternate text for some of this, but in this case I'm 
not clear on what is intended.

There are other areas where I can suggest better wording. I'd rather do 
edits in a copy than try to explain them. Would that be ok?

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2016 20:50:03 UTC

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