- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:17:36 -0400
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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 ... Irene On 10/3/16, 11:04 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 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. > >kc > >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 >>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 >
Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 20:18:11 UTC