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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:53:02 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <34db5a3b-5240-9ef4-a6f9-c51975579472@topquadrant.com>

On 3/11/2016 14:36, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 11/2/16 5:20 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> On 3/11/2016 0:48, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> As decided at the meeting:
>>> On 10/28/16 9:39 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> *QUESTION 1: What does it mean for a target to be "processed" as a
>>>> value? It's the term "processed" here that is problematic. Perhaps an
>>>> example would help, and then we could tweak the language.
>>> Proposed: The target of a shape that is the value of another shape
>>> MUST be ignored.
>> This isn't correct. This would also mean that target must be ignored 
>> here:
>> ex:PersonShape
>>     sh:property [
>>         sh:predicate ex:address ;
>>         sh:shape ex:AddressShape ;
>>     ] .
>> ex:AddressShape
>>     sh:targetClass ex:Address .
>> I have tried to explain before that this is a matter of context, and it
>> only is ignored at validation time, not always.
> The spec has to define that context, and so far it doesn't. Please 
> show an example of a target that would be ignored, and I will try to 
> find appropriate wording.

See the example above. Yes, we could put an elaborated example like this 
together with example instance data and validation results. The problem 
is that this is coming a bit early in the document - why should the 
first example about targets be one that ignores targets. I also honestly 
don't think such a corner case deserves so much space. I think we could 
even delete the "Targets MUST be ignored..." paragraph because it 
already follows as an implication from elsewhere. See the first sentence 
"A target provides *one way* to specify potential focus nodes...". Other 
ways include explicitly referencing a shape via sh:shape. So what about 
deleting the paragraph and adding something along the lines of what Eric 
suggested last night, to elaborate on other ways of finding focus nodes 
such as API calls?

Anyway, now that I have given you an example, can you now rephrase the 
paragraph about ignoring the target?

Overall, we seem to continue to struggle with a different mindset about 
the role of the spec here. I believe you want it to be longer and more 
instructive, while currently it's rather compact and just mentions the 
facts. You do not like this, but my viewpoint remains that this document 
is not a tutorial.


> kc
>>> (Alternate: The target *in* a shape... - I'm not sure what language we
>>> are using for the various components of shapes. It could be "The
>>> target that is a component of a shape ..." Any of those would be ok
>>> with me as long as we are consistent.)
>>>> *QUESTION 2: Does "are" here mean "MUST"? (This is a question 
>>>> throughout
>>>> the document, actually, wherever "are" is used in this way. Perhaps we
>>>> can decide once for all.)
>>> Yes, MUST must be used here.
>> I have switched to MUST.
>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/06cd60457ec3448d7ca578c4aa3df324bea846f0 
>> Could we close this ticket now?
>> Holger
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 05:53:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 November 2016 05:53:37 UTC