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: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:45:45 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <e5e47197-77f2-b059-f46b-df76c223815d@topquadrant.com>
Fixed and closed.

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/6a911ce5772d30a623080f7ecca6abe0a35fd40d

Thanks,
Holger



On 6/05/2016 4:09, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2016 22:46:20 UTC

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