Re: shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec]

I have updated Figure 1 to use terms like scope and filter in "passive" 
forms, clarifying that it is some process that "uses" these definitions.

I could no find the specific sentence that Tom pointed out in the second 
part of his comment, so I believe this had already been taken care of.

Assuming this resolves this specific issue, I have closed ISSUE-165. 
There are further ongoing efforts (e.g. ISSUE-163) to change the grammar 
in other places. Please re-open if you think this specific issue is not 

I also went through the SHACL RDF file to check the grammar of each 
term, and I think they all reflect the "declarative" nature of SHACL 
without implying any "actions". The only borderline case might be 
sh:hasValue, with may theoretically be better named sh:expectedValue, 
but then OWL also has owl:hasValue and even owl:imports, so I guess this 
can be left as-is.


On 20/05/2016 12:01, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I think this comes under the "wrong use of verbs" category, which 
> happens at various points in the document. I believe I removed them 
> from the very early sections, but I didn't get beyond 2.2.n in the 
> document before I crashed. If we can agree that shapes, scopes, nodes, 
> etc. do not "act" then a general clean-up of that wording can be done.
> kc
> On 5/19/16 1:47 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The 
>> introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec]
>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>> On product: SHACL Spec
>> The beginning of Section 2 has confused an external reviewer.
>>> From 
>>> 2. Shapes
>>>    The first paragraph says:
>>>      "Shape scopes define the selection criteria"
>>>    but then Figure 1 says:
>>>      "Scope selects focus nodes"
>>>    If a shape is just a graph (or part of a shapes graph), then 
>>> surely that
>>>    graph cannot actually perform a action, like "selects", as if 
>>> executed like a
>>>    Java method.  Figure 1 also talks about filter shapes that 
>>> "refine" or
>>>    "eliminate" and constraints that "produce".  Talking about graphs 
>>> as agents
>>>    is deeply confusing.
>>>      "Class-based scopes define the scope as the set of all 
>>> instances of a
>>>      class."
>>>    Okay, yes... classes have extensions... after all, RDF Schema 1.1 
>>> says that
>>>    "Associated with each class is a set, called the class extension 
>>> of the
>>>    class, which is the set of the instances of the class" [3].  But 
>>> what does
>>>    this have to do with defining the set of focus nodes for a 
>>> shape?  The scope
>>>    of a shape is _not_ a specific data graph but the set of all 
>>> instances of a
>>>    class in the world?

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2016 05:35:32 UTC