Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

On 16/05/2016 9:13, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> As I read it through, I think section 2 Intro pretty clearly says that
> there are MUST be constraints and there MAY be explicit scope definition
> using scopes and filters and, if a shape doesnąt explicitly define its
> scope, its scope could be determined from the information available
> elsewhere.
>
> However, the reference to later sections is somewhat vague and it may be
> clearer if the following
>
> The set of focus nodes may be defined explicitly in a shape using scopes
> and
> filters, or provided by the validation engine as defined in later sections.
>
>
> Was replaced with something like:
>
> The set of focus nodes for a shape may be defined explicitly in a shape
> using scopes and
> filters. It may also be determined by the validation engine from the
> information provided in other shapes as described in later sections.
>
>
> Possibly referring specifically to a later section. Would it be section
> 4.7?

Yes this makes sense to me, and I have added specific pointers to the 
sections on sh:valueShape and sh:or as typical examples for such 
scoping-by-reference:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/317e77c75f74619adb670bacab3bd02ac47fca38

Thanks,
Holger


>
> Irene
>
>
>
> On 5/15/16, 6:04 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION:
>> "2. Shapes
>>
>> Shapes are SHACL instances of sh:Shape and define one or more
>> constraints that a set of focus nodes can be validated against. The set
>> of focus nodes may be defined explicitly in a shape using scopes and
>> filters, or provided by the validation engine as defined in later
>> sections."
>
>

Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 01:05:58 UTC