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

Re: Minimalist "validate" solution

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:41:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3O4SuzBeMLOxDJh_V7xKQueTgnr1pD5my5RGWvpxR3YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
if we go with "conforms", we will use the term validation for the process
of validating a data graph against  a shapes graph
and conforms for the result of the validation, I think this makes it more
clear

Should we go with the edit directly or discuss it in the next telco?
I missed the previous two telcos and not sure if this is discussed already





On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Conforms is a good suggestion. - kc
>
> On 11/10/16 1:06 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>> This suggestion looks fine to me too (but not a native speaker as well)
>> another term we could consider is conforms / not conforms
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     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 examples.
>>
>>     kc
>>
>>
>>     On 11/4/16 12:29 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>         diff: http://bit.ly/2em5UH3
>>
>>         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
>>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dimitris Kontokostas
>> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
>> Association
>> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
>> http://aligned-project.eu
>> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2016 14:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 13 November 2016 14:42:18 UTC