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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec]

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:12:32 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <2498ed2f-1201-32c1-c2bf-7cc0549352d7@topquadrant.com>
A related thought is that a sh:PropertyConstraint could also be regarded 
as sh:PropertyDeclaration. For some tools it may serve as the basis of 
validation, but for others it is really just a description of how a 
property should show up on forms, or simply to state that a property is 
suggested to be used for certain instances. Note that 
sh:PropertyConstraint includes non-validating properties. The actual 
"constraints" are closer to our current "constraint components".

Holger


On 20/05/2016 5:56, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/163
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> Both internal and external reviews of the SHACL specification have indicated
> that they have problems with the use of the word "constraining".   One
> option is to dramatically reduce the use of the various forms of
> "constraint" in the spec.
>
> See
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0000.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0004.html
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 23:13:04 UTC

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