Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed

regarding:
"The spec uses different terminology from RDF where it is using
concepts from RDF. For example, the SHACL spec uses "resource" where
RDF uses "node"."


the term 'node' is explicitly referenced in 
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#terminology

I have collated candidate locations for replacing 'resource' with node:
https://github.com/marqh/data-shapes/pull/1

There are places where 'resource' is used in contrast to 'node'  in the
same sentence, suggesting explicit difference in meaning, e.g.
https://github.com/marqh/data-shapes/pull/1/files#diff-69303a57193e6c2d7327c8de0fc977caL3156

which may require further thought

I have not replaced any RDF, only usage within the text.

I have not updated uses of the term 
'validation result resource'
as this does not seem like a 'node' to me.
Is 'resource' being used in an explanatory way here, rather than a
specific reference?

If so, then there are no uses of 'resource' requiring a definition
under 1.1 Terminology



I suggest that:
 - any of the candidate locations which are suitable
   replacement get replaced 
  - I can submit a PR for these and remove any ones which cause
    problems
 - a definition of 'resource' is added to
   http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#terminology
   - if it is deemed to be a term requiring definition.  TBC based on
     PR feedback

Does this seem a sensible course of action to take?


thank you
mark   



On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:57:13 +0000
RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
wrote:

> shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific
> terminology issues as needed
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/43
> 
> Assigned to: Mark Hedley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 17 October 2016 17:21:44 UTC