Sample comments

The google-doc that Dimitris and I are working from[1]  has about 90 
unresolved comments so far; many are from sections 3-4.2, which is what 
I am up to so far, since Dimitris has already worked on section 1-2.2. 
Some of them are language edits that are probably not controversial 
(although I would appreciate other eyes on those), so there are from 2-3 
dozen that might be substantive. Generally these are places where it 
isn't just a matter of wording an/or it isn't clear what the meaning is. 
I want to give some examples here so that the group sees what kind of 
issues I feel need to be brought out in the draft.

1) 3.4.6
The property sh:detail may link a (parent)* result with one or more 
other (child) results that provide further details about the cause of 
the (parent) result. Depending on the capabilities of the SHACL 
processor, this may include violations of nested constraints** that have 
been evaluated via sh:shape.

* Parent and child are not defined anywhere. It isn't clear what these 
refer to. All other uses of "parent/child" are in examples and refer to 
people.
** Nested constraints are not mentioned before this and are not defined.

2) 3.2
The data graph is expected to include all the ontology axioms related* 
to the data and especially all the rdfs:subClassOf triples in order for 
SHACL to correctly identify class targets and validate Core SHACL 
constraints.**

* Not sure what ontology axioms are meant here, especially since SHACL 
does not make use of domains or ranges. AFAIK only class and 
sub/superclass are relevant to SHACL, but the way this says "especially" 
makes it sound like there are others. Are there others? Also "related 
to" is unclear. What makes an axiom "related to" the data?
** This makes it sound like SHACL core is only about class targets.

Given that there are dozens of these, I would prefer not to write them 
up as issues. However, if that seems to be the best way, I will do so. 
However, as I have said, I would appreciate more eyes on the other 
aspect of the g-doc which is language edits. As I have said, differences 
in opinion have meant that my language edits to a fork of the document 
have not always been accepted, and I am therefore reluctant to go 
through the effort to edits that haven't been reviewed by other folks in 
the group.

Thanks,
kc


[1]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O24vnnZuTWQgi2-U_-lnY-IjV9EbRyxNtrYC3zq2pnM/edit#heading=h.6jvp5c2gxfub
-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 20 October 2016 21:32:58 UTC