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: Solbrig, Harold R., M.S. <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:07:07 +0000
Message-Id: <519743$2ujike@ironport10.mayo.edu>
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I'd strongly support that "set of values", as "value set" has a lot of additional conceptual baggage in the healthcare domain.

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com<mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>>
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
Resent-From: <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:48 AM

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<mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
To:        RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org<mailto: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.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 18:07:31 UTC

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