- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:27:50 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 12/7/16 1:09 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > Formally speaking, what Jan said (and I hope Jan will not get upset at me for saying this) was “incorrect”: Oddly, no one apologized to me for telling me that I was wrong. This in itself makes it very hard to work together. > >>>>>>> To be even more precise: a shape is a resource and can be >>>>>>> referred to by means of an IRI or a blank node. Literals do not refer >>>>>>> to resources. -j > Again, formally, we can’t say that a blank node refers to a resource. As I painstakingly described in my e-mail, a blank node can identify that a resource exists and can be used to describe it, but it doesn’t name it or refers to it. And literals are another matter, so lets not go into that. Because of the choice of words his sentence couldn’t be just dropped into the spec as-is. > > The sentence you proposed: > >>>>>> Shape is a resource that it is referred to *by means of an IRI*. > > Could potentially be put into the spec. However, while there is nothing incorrect here, it doesn’t say anything. Everything except for literals is referred/denoted/named using an IRI. Some people may criticize it on that ground. > > And since this sentence doesn’t really say anything, by itself, it doesn’t address the topic of this thread which was “what is a shape” and how to improve its definition in the spec? > But it says something to me, and to Jan. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? I say that it helps make the spec clearer. You can disagree, but only for yourself, not for everyone. Definitely not for me. kc > What is your view of the definition I proposed? Do you see any issues with it and, if so, what are they? -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2016 21:28:25 UTC