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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-197 (Defined ): "Defined" and "declared" used in multiple ways, and not defined [SHACL Spec]

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:11:08 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5336f78a-bafa-bd80-aa09-0375f7ec1c35@topquadrant.com>
I have gone through the whole document, replacing most usages of 
"define" with either "specify" or "declare". I have also added 
definitions of these two terms to the beginning of the document:



On 19/11/2016 2:15, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> I would use "specified" for the second meaning of "defined". I think 
> "declared" would work as well. "Described" - may be, but would not be 
> my first choice.
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue 
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:
>     shapes-ISSUE-197 (Defined ): "Defined" and "declared" used in
>     multiple ways, and not defined [SHACL Spec]
>     http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/197
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/197>
>     Raised by: Karen Coyle
>     On product: SHACL Spec
>     >From Peter's email [1]:
>     "Constraints are defined within a shape"
>     "Defined within" is not defined.
>     "Constraints that declare more than one parameters, such as
>     sh:pattern, are
>     not allowed to be declared more than once in the same constraint."
>     The first two uses of "declare" come from section 6.2.  A core
>     definition is
>     needed.
>     The last use of "declared" is not defined.
>     "declare" is used for many different purposes, most of them undefined.
>     ******* More analysis *******
>     The use of defined in its normal sense of "having a definition" is
>     ok. Example:
>     "The parameter name is defined as the local name of the value of
>     sh:predicate."
>     The use of defined to mean something like "takes as a value" or
>     "is coded as" is less clear:
>     "Property constraints are defined in a shape with the property
>     sh:property."
>     "Based on the parameter IRIs on the tables, pre-bound variables
>     are defined using the parameter names."
>     In some cases, the term "declare" is used in the same way as the
>     second meaning of define:
>     " Constraint components declare one or more parameter properties
>     and validation instructions (such as those implemented as SPARQL
>     queries) that can be used to perform the validation for the given
>     focus node and parameter values."
>     Suggest:
>     - use "defined" for "is given a definition or meaning in this or
>     other texts
>     - do not use "declare"
>     - find a more precise term for the second meaning of "defined"
>     that specifically addresses the creation of properties and values,
>     regardless of how "definitional" they are.
>     (Note how this is used in the SKOS document: "Therefore, while
>     SKOS can be used to describe a concept scheme, SKOS does not
>     provide any mechanism to completely define a concept scheme."
>     Could "describe" be used for this second meaning of "define"? That
>     still seems imprecise for the specific cases in SHACL.)
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 05:11:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:38 UTC