Re: Terminology section restructuring

I think the main problem right now is that the sections that provide
further definition for each concept (e.g., shape) start with their own
definition of a concept which may not necessarily contradict the
definition in the definition section, but uses different words.

I believe that when a SHACL specific term is defined in the definition
section, the first time it is used in the more detailed sections, the
definition should be repeated.

For example, right now:

Definition section

A shape is a node in a shapes graph that is typically a SHACL instance  of
sh:Shape. A shape provides a collection of targets, filters,  and
parameters  of constraint components  that specify how a data graph  is
validated against the shape. Shapes can also provide non-validating
information, such as labels and comments.

Shapes section 

Shapes define constraints that a set of focus nodes can be validated
against. The set of focus nodes for a shape may be defined explicitly in a
shape  using targets  and filters . The focus nodes  may also be
determined as part of the validation of constraints that include
references to shapes using properties such as sh:shape  and sh:or. Shapes
can also provide non-validating information , such as labels and names.

I think it is useful to the reader to have a section with all definitions.
However, these same definitions should be in each section that describes a
particular concept. If people think it is too verbose, then move the
definitions to the detail section. It would still be better than having
what looks like two different definitions and no explicit connection
between the definition section and detail sections.

By the way, the text above demonstrates what I wrote in the recent e-mail
- an intermingling of selection and validation processes that may not be
necessary and, in fact, potentially confusing. If these were separated we
could say, instead:

The set of focus nodes for a shape may be specified using targets and
filters that are part of a shape a node must be validated against. The
focus nodes for a shape may also be specified in constraints that include
references to a shape using properties such as sh:shape  and sh:or.

Just a thought ...


On 10/3/16, 11:04 AM, "Karen Coyle" <> wrote:

>Dimitris, I have comments on the content of those sections that I have
>been working on. I may start posting them rather than complete the
>section. However, I do agree that integrating the definitions where the
>term is first used would be more helpful to readers.
>On 10/3/16 4:07 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>> Currently, we have a big terminology section that tries to describe most
>> parts of SHACL from start.
>> However, we have dedicated sections for most of the terms introduced in
>> the terminology, e.g. shapes, targets, filters, constraints, validation,
>> etc and there is some repetition in some definition and backwards
>> references to the terminology section through respec
>> I suggest we keep the basic terminology (e.g. from "Basic RDF
>> Terminology" until "SHACL Instance") and try to integrate the rest in
>> the spec.
>> Any ideas, comments?
>> Best,
>> Dimitris
>> --
>> Dimitris Kontokostas
>> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
>> Projects:,,
>> Homepage:
>> Research Group: AKSW/KILT
>Karen Coyle
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 20:18:11 UTC