Re: shapes-ISSUE-209 (What is a shape?): What is a shape [SHACL Spec]

Karen,

I hear you perfectly well. I may not understand everything you say, but it is not for the lack of trying to listen and understand.  In general, there is no need to shout at me either in person or in writing to make me listen. I already try very hard to understand what people say. Shouting doesn’t make things clearer. At least not to me.

If I am being dense and not understanding you, then may be trying to re-phrase or give more context would help.

I don’t think you quite understood what I said. Perhaps, it is due to my own failure in clarity of communication. I will try again.

As I already said, I have no problem with putting the sentence you proposed into the spec. I did speak with people who had previously served as editors of RDF specifications and they all said that this sentence doesn’t say anything because it just repeats what is true for everything in RDF. This means we may get that kind of input and criticism from a certain group of experts. Be it as it may, it is fine with me - and especially if it helps someone.

What I have a problem or concern with is that adding this sentence doesn’t address the issue of defining "what is a shape”. If such issue exists in the current spec, then, objectively speaking, adding this sentence is not enough to address it. So, I think we still need to do some work.

If on the other hand, you are saying that adding this sentence closes the issue from you perspective and others agree with it - by all means, I have no intention of stopping progress.

Irene

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 22:44:35 UTC