Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions

OK, here is what I think are the remaining questions about filter shapes:

 > If I have understood this sentence:
 > Targets are ignored when a shape is processed as a value of 
parameters of shape-based constraint components (i.e. sh:shape), logical 
constraint components (i.e. sh:or), or filter shapes (sh:filterShape).
 > ... then I believe it can be said more clearly as:
 > Targets MUST be ignored in the values of shape-based constraint 
components (i.e. sh:shape), logical constraint components (i.e. sh:or), 
or filter shapes (sh:filterShape).
 > ("values" might be said as "value nodes" to get across the graph 
nature of that)

No this would not be correct. The key is the context. The targets are 
only ignored if it is being *processed* as a value. A shape may also be 
executed stand-alone, as an entry point into the validation.

*QUESTION 1: What does it mean for a target to be "processed" as a 
value? It's the term "processed" here that is problematic. Perhaps an 
example would help, and then we could tweak the language.

*QUESTION 2: Does "are" here mean "MUST"? (This is a question throughout 
the document, actually, wherever "are" is used in this way. Perhaps we 
can decide once for all.)


On 10/28/16 9:10 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Right, thanks Irene. I'm going to go through these mails and see what
> questions still need to be answered.
> kc
> On 10/26/16 6:52 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> sh:filterShape is a property, so its type is rdf:Property
>> Itıs range of values are instances of sh:Shape
>> sh:filterShape
>>   rdf:type rdf:Property ;
>>   rdfs:domain sh:Constraint ;
>>   rdfs:range sh:Shape ;
>> Irene
>> On 10/26/16, 8:58 AM, "Karen Coyle" <> wrote:
>>>>> Note that the first sentence of filter shape (2.2) says that the
>>>>> filter shape is a shape: "A filter is a shape in the shapes graph that
>>>>> further refines the focus nodes in the data graph that are validated
>>>>> against a constraint or all the constraints of a shape."
>>>> Hmm well, that's formal language - I don't see a mistake but it's not
>>>> very readable. This is the general conflict that we have as editors:
>>>> some people tell us they want it more formal and others tell us they
>>>> want it more readable. It's not always possible to have both. If in
>>>> doubt, I am afraid I'll have to stick with the formal language and
>>>> leave
>>>> the rest to other material. I welcome diffs with better prose.
>>> It's not the language that is the problem - it's that it says that a
>>> filter is a shape, which I read as
>>> sh:filterShape rdf:type sh:Shape
>>> while the RDF says:
>>> sh:filterShape rdf:type sh:Constraint

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 16:40:22 UTC