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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:57:21 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <572224D1.6070205@kcoyle.net>
Jim, problems raised in emails are not always addressed, and there is no 
tracking of them. I agree that raising issues sometimes seems extreme, 
but it is the only mechanism that we have that seems to work. It would 
make some sense to bring a group of these up as an issue, but then it is 
hard to close the issue if some are non-controversial and others cannot 
be decided on.

I like the idea of making edits that can be reviewed by the group, if we 
can find a clean way to do that. It is easier to understand the issues 
raised in the context of the document, and is more useful when the 
"issuer" can come up with alternate wording.

kc

On 4/28/16 6:45 AM, Jim Amsden wrote:
> A simple fix would be to change "value set" which is a noun that could
> introduce a term to "set of values".
>
> Instead of raising individual issues for these editorial changes, a
> better approach would be to include a set of them in a document review
> with proposed changes to address the concerns.
>
>
> Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
> OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
> 919-525-6575
>
>
>
>
> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 04/28/2016 03:25 AM
> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description
> of  sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> The term "value set" is used with its intuitive plain english meaning,
> based on the assumption that the reader knows what the team "value" of a
> property means. A value set is then simply the set of all values. How
> could this be misinterpreted by anyone?
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 28/04/2016 16:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>  > shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of
> sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined
>  >
>  > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/154
>  >
>  > Raised by: Dean Allemang
>  > On product:
>  >
>  > There is no description or definition of "value set", which is used
> in the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 14:57:51 UTC

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