- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 09:15:10 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <201605191615.u4JGFMJ8014645@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>
Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 05/19/2016 07:10:18 AM: > ... > There's a difference between being a "constraint language" which is a > language to describe constraints, and "constraining" or "validating" > which are actions. For the most part I do not think that the SHACL > document should be talking about constraining or validating - it should > be about the language. SHACL does not constrain, although it does > describe constraints and desired validation outcomes. It may be > necessary, at least for some aspects of SHACL, to describe the desired > outcomes when using the language, but that isn't an action being > performed by SHACL, it is the expectation on implementations using > SHACL. (Some of this could be bracketed as "conformance requirements".) > Throughout the document there are too many verbs that shouldn't be there > in the spec for a descriptive language. Once we settle on some of the > bigger design issues, I could go through and edit these out. > > -kc I cannot agree more! -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Cloud
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 16:16:02 UTC