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

That's fine if the usage is unambiguous and follows the normal meaning 
of "define", and there are many clear uses of define in document, which 
I noted previously. If it is used to mean "provides a definition for" 
then it's fine. There are other times when it is used to mean "has as 
value" or simple "is" - as in

"Note also that a qualified cardinality constraint defined using 
sh:qualifiedValueShape, sh:qualifiedMinCount, and sh:qualifiedMaxCount 
is equivalent to a sh:partition constraint that..."

In those cases, the term "defined" is less precise than:

Note also that a qualified cardinality constraint of either 
sh:qualifiedValueShape, sh:qualifiedMinCount, and sh:qualifiedMaxCount 
is equivalent to a sh:partition constraint that..."

There's no need for define here, and nothing is really being defined. 
The use of these properties is not definitional, it simply "is" and 
should be stated that way.

kc

On 11/24/16 6:14 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Several W3C specs use the words ‘define’, ‘describe’ and ‘specify’
> without saying what these words mean. They also, at times, use them
> interchangeably.
>
> For example, I think in the following passage from RDFS spec, ‘define’
> and ‘describe’ are used interchangeably:
>
>     "rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to
>     indicate a resource defining the subject resource. This property may
>     be used to indicate an RDF vocabulary *in which a resource is
>     described.*
>
>     A triple of the form:
>
>     S rdfs:isDefinedBy O
>
>     states that the *resource O defines S*.”
>
> The word ‘declare’ or its derivation such as ‘declaration’ is used more
> rarely, but there is some usage. For example, in the RDFS spec:
>
>
>     "Although it is possible to combine use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
>     with sub-property hierarchies, direct support for such declarations
>     are provided by richer Web Ontology languages such as OWL.”
>
>
> OWL spec also makes an extensive use of words ‘define’ or ‘describe’
> without defining them. However, it attempts to define something called
> ‘class description’ and ‘class definition’ e.g.,
> in https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/:
>
>     "A class description is the term used in this document (and in the
>     OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax) for the basic building blocks of
>     class axioms (informally called class definitions in the Overview
>     and Guide documents). A class description describes an OWL class,
>     either by a class name or by specifying the class extension of an
>     unnamed anonymous class.”
>
>
> And in https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
>
>     Class Definition
>         informal term for an owl:Class element
>     Class Description
>         describes an OWL class, either by a class name or by specifying
>         a class extension of an unnamed anonymous class
>
>
> The specification makes an extensive use of the phrase “class description”.
>
> With this, I question the need to formally define words such as
> “define”, “describe”, etc. because all other specs seem to rely on the
> common sense interpretation of these words. It may be useful to define
> “shape description” and/or “shape definition'. This could also help to
> resolve Issue-209.
>
> Irene Polikoff
>
>
>
>
> On 11/24/16, 3:22 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     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>
>             <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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 16:34:48 UTC