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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 23:54:06 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5723050E.3090508@gmail.com>
The point of writing a specification of a language is to be precise.  I find
much of the wording in the current SHACL specification to be much too loose.
Although I will not object to the current wording here, I do not view it as
adequately precise to serve as the support for part of a W3C recommendation.

peter


On 04/28/2016 03:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 <<mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com>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: <<mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>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 Friday, 29 April 2016 06:54:39 UTC

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