W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:09:54 -0700
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <572B8C72.6030201@kcoyle.net>
I only see one instance of it, in 3.5.1. Should be easy to fix.

kc

On 5/5/16 7:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> There is still "value sets" in the document.  I have re-opened this issue.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 04/28/2016 03:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Switched to "set of values":
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/b74d71363cf44113fc4a77173106d492c30a94d5
>>
>> Peter, please confirm that this addresses your issue. According to the newly
>> adopted adjustments to our WG process, editorial issues can be closed without
>> a formal WG resolution, i.e. either you or me could simply close the ticket
>> once we agree on a resolution, and there is no one else on the mailing list
>> with concerns.
>>
>> Also a friendly reminder to everyone that such issues should be accompanied
>> with a proposed fix if possible, or even a github diff.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/2016 4:07, Solbrig, Harold R., M.S. wrote:
>>> I'd strongly support that "set of values", as "value set" has a lot of
>>> additional conceptual baggage in the healthcare domain.
>>>
>>> From: Jim Amsden <<mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com>jamsden@us.ibm.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM
>>> To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of
>>> sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined
>>> Resent-From: <<mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:48 AM
>>>
>>> A simple fix would be to change "value set" which is a noun that could
>>> introduce a term to "set of values".
>>>
>>> Instead of raising individual issues for these editorial changes, a better
>>> approach would be to include a set of them in a document review with
>>> proposed changes to address the concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
>>> OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
>>> 919-525-6575
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:        Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com
>>> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
>>> To:        RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>>
>>> Date:        04/28/2016 03:25 AM
>>> Subject:        Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the
>>> description of  sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is
>>> not defined
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The term "value set" is used with its intuitive plain english meaning,
>>> based on the assumption that the reader knows what the team "value" of a
>>> property means. A value set is then simply the set of all values. How
>>> could this be misinterpreted by anyone?
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/04/2016 16:51, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>> shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and
>>> sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/154
>>>>
>>>> Raised by: Dean Allemang
>>>> On product:
>>>>
>>>> There is no description or definition of "value set", which is used in the
>>> description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2016 18:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC