- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:59:42 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 8/07/2016 9:45, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 7/7/16 3:42 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> >> >> On 8/07/2016 8:35, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> On the call today I was told that the way to avoid the complication of >>> the $variables in the spec is to choose not to view the SPARQL in the >>> draft. However, even with the SPARQL hidden, the $variables are still >>> visible since they are part of the explanatory text. So this does not >>> solve the problem, and in fact it probably makes it worse because >>> without the SPARQL the $variables make even less sense. For example, >>> with SPARQL definitions hidden, you see: >>> >>> ********** >>> >>> 2.1.1 Node scopes (sh:scopeNode) >>> >>> A node scope with value $scopeNode, defines $scopeNode as the node >>> in-scope in the data graph. >>> >>> Node scopes are defined with the sh:scopeNode predicate. The values of >>> sh:scopeNode can be a IRIs or literals. >>> >>> ************* >>> >>> I think they need to be removed from the text, and moved into the >>> SPARQL code area, and the text should be complete without using them. >> >> That would be fine with me. I had used the values in SPARQL-like $ >> notation to make it easier to read for those who are familiar with >> SPARQL because the SPARQL query and its description would match. But if >> the WG thinks this is too geeky, we can just drop the $ sign and change >> the CSS style around these variables. >> >> I do wonder what audience are we talking about here? What in particular >> is difficult to understand about the $ variables? The spec is not a >> tutorial... >> >> Holger > > Holger, you always trot out this "not a tutorial" like anyone who has > any problem with the spec is some kind of backward dunce. I wish you > would be less condescending and more open to hearing suggestions. The > folks who brought this up are key RDF programmers on projects like > Europeana and DPLA. Hardly novices. But believe them when they say > that it makes the reading and comprehension more difficult. Do not > disparage them. The suggested change here is to drop the $ character before variable names in the scope section. I am really surprised this would make a difference, but said I have no problems with that. What else would be needed to make the document more readable for the audience you are referring to? Anyway, I think you are over-reacting in your personal criticism. I am merely collecting information to help me fulfill my editing role. If I were to accept every single viewpoint without asking for clarifications we would never reach a fixpoint - there are just too many different viewpoints and potential audiences here. Holger
Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 00:00:19 UTC