- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 15:22:47 +0100
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2KqZv+h_pF_rC6cpAgJkmEFi5qBLjgegqLOD3eP0eDDw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Karen, I tried to reformulate 2.1.3.1 Property scopes (sh:PropertyScope) Can you check if this makes it more clear? if it does I will adjust the rest of the sections accordingly https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d2d70f5caa72f7911567d7692b58741fe7481625 (the edit is also live) Dimitris On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > On 5/1/16 6:49 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > >> Hi Karen, >> >> yes these are good points. The use of "scope class" here is confusing, >> also due to the overlap with the unrelated sh:scopeClass property. The >> proper term for them would be "scope type", which is also used in >> section 8.2 >> >> Please review my edits: >> >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/4f74748b0637eeb5406abfce2797335baad6e33a >> >> >> On 1/05/2016 10:27, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n >>> [SHACL Spec] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/159 >>> >>> Raised by: Karen Coyle >>> On product: SHACL Spec >>> >>> I would like to clarify 2.1.3 and its subsections by eliminating the >>> phrase "scope class". The current description in the introduction is: >>> >>> 2.1.3 (sentence 3) >>> "SHACL includes four built-in scope classes: sh:PropertyScope... etc." >>> >>> The pattern for each subsections reads: >>> >>> 2.1.3.1 Property scopes (sh:propertyScope) >>> "The scope class sh:PropertyScope selects all subjects that have at >>> least one value for a given property sh:predicate." >>> >>> I would suggest that we replace sentence 3 in 2.1.3 with: >>> "SHACL includes four subclasses of sh:Scope that define the core scope >>> types:...." >>> >>> And the pattern first statement for the subsections would be: >>> >>> "The class sh:PropertyScope is the class of those subjects that have >>> at least one value for a given property sh:predicate." >>> >> >> In the latter case I diverged a bit from your suggestion to the pattern >> "represents the class of scopes of XY". I prefer this because a scope >> does not represent a class of subjects - the term class is already >> overloaded with different meaning IMHO. Scopes "represent" sets of nodes >> in my opinion. >> > > For the latter statement you have: > > "The scope type <code>sh:PropertyScope</code> represents the class of > scopes of all subjects that have at least one value for a given property > <code>sh:predicate</code>." > > This introduces a new concept "scope type" which isn't defined, and > includes "class of scopes" which is a grammatical rewording of "scope > class". Also, The sentence is too dense to be readable. Let's first talk > about what we want it to mean, then we can develop wording. > > -First is sh:PropertyScope a class? I believe that is the case. To what > extent that matters here is another matter. > > -Next, what is the "thing" (in the RDF sense) that is a member of that > class? First, "class of scopes" is as vague as our original "scope class". > What is the thing, and in which graph (shapes graph or data graph) is that > thing to be found? > > -What is meant here by "subject"? I believe that this refers to a node in > the data graph. Is that the case? > > -Finally, in editorial mode, "represents" should be "is". If there is a > type "sh:PropertyScope" it *is* a class. > > If I understand correctly, the shapes graph can have a subject (aka > "node") that is defined as being of rdfs:type sh:PropertyScope. That > subject has a predicate "sh:predicate" whose value is the predicate in the > data graph that is the target of the validation rules that are linked to > this shapes graph node. > > Or, to put this in simple English, the shapes graph states (or > "indicates") the predicate in the data graph that is the target of > validation. > > kc > > > >> Are these edits addressing your issue? >> >> Thanks >> Holger >> >> >> >>> Reasons: this eliminates the vague phrase "scope class", and also does >>> not ascribe agency to the subclasses (subclasses do not SELECT). >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http:// http://aligned-project.eu Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 14:23:43 UTC