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

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 07:24:25 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5741C119.60900@kcoyle.net>
Holger, the "has" predicates are fine for inanimate subjects; they just 
can't "do". The issue has been in the text of the document not in the 
language, and I had already changed some of the text.


On 5/21/16 10:34 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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
> addressed.
> 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.
> Holger
> 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]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/165
>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>> The beginning of Section 2 has confused an external reviewer.
>>>> From
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0000.html
>>>> 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?

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2016 14:24:51 UTC

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