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: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:24:37 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ccb1ac62-0e9a-2701-5812-48c509a42665@topquadrant.com>
Switched to "set of values":

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/b74d71363cf44113fc4a77173106d492c30a94d5

Peter, please confirm that this addresses your issue. According to the 
newly adopted adjustments to our WG process, editorial issues can be 
closed without a formal WG resolution, i.e. either you or me could 
simply close the ticket once we agree on a resolution, and there is no 
one else on the mailing list with concerns.

Also a friendly reminder to everyone that such issues should be 
accompanied with a proposed fix if possible, or even a github diff.

Thanks,
Holger


On 29/04/2016 4:07, Solbrig, Harold R., M.S. wrote:
> 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 22:25:11 UTC

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