- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:11:11 -0400
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I think the below is right, but it is not the only way to identify focus nodes. A more complete description would be something like: 1. Scope step for Shape1-> "in scope" + filter step -> focus node for Shape1 2. Scope step for Shape2-> "in scope" + filter step -> focus node for Shape2 these are the ³final² focus nodes in that they are definitely in focus, but they are not necessary a complete set of focus nodes as step 3 can add to them Note that I am skipping "Scope step -> "in scope" (+ 0) -> focus node² because ³scope step² could also be (+0) - that is, a shape could have not only zero filter statements, but also zero scope statements. 3. Focus node for Shape1 -> ³sh:shape² step -> additional focus nodes for Shape2, where Shape2 is a value of sh:shape in some Shape1 constraint. In other words, filter step filters out (removes) some nodes in scope. Thus, by applying a filter not all in-scope nodes become focus nodes. ³sh:shape² step adds some nodes, so that the nodes that were not identified as in scope through the scope statements for a shape can become focus nodes. Irene On 7/14/16, 1:00 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >So the steps are: > >Scope step -> "in scope" + filter step -> focus node > >and this is true even if there is no filter step. I think that's what >isn't clear in the document. > >Scope step -> "in scope" (+ 0) -> focus node
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 18:11:51 UTC