Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this?

On 7/05/2016 23:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The wording in 2.3 is still problematic.  From that section:
> sh:PropertyConstraint is the class of all property constraints. Property
> constraints apply on the value of a property on the focus node.
> However, sh:minCount does not work this way, as it is about the set of values
> of a property.
> What does it mean to be a class of something?  Even the new terminology
> section does not help, as it just opens up the question of how a class
> represents anything and how nodes can exist independent of any RDF graph.
> How do default value types interact with the terminology section?
> What I am seeing here is a bunch of attempts to patch up something that is a
> poor design from the start.  It is thus no surprise that each attempt only
> exposes more and more problems and requires more and more machinery.

I disagree completely. Anyway, we are currently starting bottom-up, with 
proper and official definitions of the basic terminology. Once we apply 
consistent terminology throughout the document, things will become 
clearer and cleaner.


Received on Sunday, 8 May 2016 23:21:08 UTC