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

Re: New Terminology Section

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 14:54:19 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6bbe5af8-c3ef-f106-b5c9-0dc4002a2624@topquadrant.com>

On 7/05/2016 2:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

Where is the error? The definitions of terms like node and triples are 
just meant to be links to the RDF spec.

>
> 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.

The goal of this terminology section was to divide and conquer the 
problem space so that we have specific small snippets to work on. 
Everyone is welcome to contribute here. Pointing out that something is 
"a bad idea" needs to be followed by a specific suggestion on what to do 
instead. We already spoke at length about not using terms from RDFS if 
they have different meaning in SHACL. You suggested using "SHACL 
instance" instead of "instance" etc. If that is still your suggestion, I 
have no problem switching to that term within the spec (although I doubt 
anybody will ever use these terms elsewhere and that it would make a 
difference in practice). The CSS styling of underlining each use of 
these terms to go back to their definition should also help.

But if someone has better terms for "instance", "class", "subclass" and 
"type", then please make suggestions. My role as an editor is not to 
create the whole content, but to reflect what the WG has decided.

Holger


>
> peter
>
>
>
>
> 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:
>>
>>      http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#terminology
>>
>> 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 Saturday, 7 May 2016 04:54:56 UTC

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