Re: Minimalist "validate" solution

Another "minimalism" would be to use the language "is/are valid" "is/are 
not valid", which meshes well with the tables that Eric added to the 


On 11/4/16 12:29 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> diff:
> This shows how the minimalism solution would work, using section 3
> Validation as the demo.
> This minimalist solution leaves the term "validation" in place, defined as:
> "Validation is the process of determining whether a data graph, or nodes
> in the data graph, is consistent with the constraints in a shapes graph.
> Data graphs or nodes that are consistent with the constraints in the
> shapes graph are said to "successfully validate"; those that are not
> consistent are said to "not successfully validate".
> As you can see in the diff, places where "validates" was being used to
> mean "does validate successfully" have been re-worded "successfully
> validates". If this solution is acceptable to the group (perhaps we can
> vote on it next time), then I can take a read through the entire spec
> and make this change.
> Less minimalist solutions would require us to substitute another term
> for "validation". Some possible terms are:
> - verification
> - evaluation
> - comparison
> Any of these would result in about 250 changes to the document. Those
> changes are not difficult to make, but that would be a more substantial
> change.
> kc

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2016 18:49:21 UTC