W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > October 2016

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

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:02:41 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ae085226-fa95-451e-fb77-f9d3bd6f80ab@topquadrant.com>


On 18/10/2016 3:21, markh wrote:
> 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?

Thanks again for your pull request. I have accepted your changes in:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/afaaeee264...a8269811e8

and removed the remaining usages of the term "resource". This means we 
don't need to define the term.

Again, if this has been a response to external feedback, it would be 
helpful to have a reference so that we can "tick it off".

Holger


>
>
> 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 Tuesday, 18 October 2016 01:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:37 UTC