- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:22:43 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I would advise choosing only one of them, and removing "sometimes" from the statement, which makes it something you cannot rely on - in other words, are they used other times for something else? is something else sometimes used in their place?: "(In this document, the verbs <em>specify</em> or <em>declare</em> are sometimes used to express the fact that a node has property values in a graph.)" I haven't read through the uses at this point. kc On 11/23/16 9:11 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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: > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/92407af35824a7100845b4a84884c86de086b9d7 > > Holger > > > 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.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 20:23:18 UTC