Re: New Terminology Section

I think that instead of reiterating descriptions from RDF 1.1 Concepts and
Abstract Syntax, and having errors in at least one of the descriptions, it
would be better to just defer to that document.

I think that it is a bad idea to redefine terms from RDF and RDFS.  Like it or
not, some readers of SHACL documents will use the RDF and RDFS definitions of
terms like subclass and superclass when reading SHACL documents even if these
terms are redefined in the SHACL documents.


On 05/05/2016 11:49 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> As suggested today, I have added a Terminology section to the very start of
> the document:
> The primary goal of this section is to provide reasonably formal definitions
> of the key concepts so that we have this out of the way, and so that later
> passages of the document can hyperlink to them. I created a HTML coding
> convention that makes it easy to maintain such links, allowing us to switch
> terms (such as replacing "instance" with "SHACL instance") if needed. Such
> internal links to the definitions show up with a light grey underline,
> distinguishable from other hyperlinks.
> The secondary goal of this section is to serve as a quick overview for the
> casual reader. But my understanding is that this spec is not the right place
> to serve as a tutorial for beginners, and someone should create a Primer with
> a different audience in mind.
> The third goal of this section is for us to have a compact space to
> collaborate on proper definitions that inform the rest of the document. I
> would appreciate feedback/iterations on these definitions so that we reach a
> fixpoint. We could then align the rest of the document once we are happy.
> Thanks
> Holger

Received on Friday, 6 May 2016 16:14:54 UTC