- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:23:12 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 13/12/2016 1:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Very early on in the document there is > > (In this document, the verbs specify or declare are sometimes used to express > the fact that a node has property values in a graph.) > > This looks unproblematic, but would be problematic if there are any cases of > wording like > > .... if n declares ... > > where n might not be a node in the graph in question. > > Another pass is needed to flush out any other of these cases. I made another pass over these cases but did not find many: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/ed1cec836644e225a03bd0ae1edab0e489dba51b If there are any others, I welcome pointers. Holger > > peter > > > > On 12/11/2016 10:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> I have gone through the whole document, searching and updating all usages of >> "node": >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/3ce4495f47c91c711e99968b6ce2ee5b763193e5 >> >> >> The intent of the terminology is such that >> - "node" is only used if it's clear from the context that the node must exist >> in the graph >> - "RDF term" is used more generally, e.g. when talking about targets >> - "focus node" is used to refer to RDF terms in the context of a data graph >> >> I have switched to "value node" in many cases to avoid the general term "node" >> (value nodes may be focus node, which may not exist in the graph...) >> >> It may be beneficial for another pair of eyes going through these changes to >> make sure it's more precise now. >> >> Theoretically we would need to rename "focus node" to "focus term", but I >> believe the term node is more widely understood than term and having focus >> nodes that are not also nodes in the graph is a very rare corner case. >> >> Thanks, >> Holger >> >> >> On 12/12/2016 8:06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> The SHACL document uses "RDF node" in several places. However, RDF node is >>> not a term defined in RDF. The replacement should probably be "RDF term". >>> >>> In other places, only "node" is used, in particular at the beginning of >>> section 3. "Node" only has a definition in RDF in the context of a particular >>> graph. This causes problems for targets that are not nodes in the data graph, >>> as in >>> >>> Data graph >>> >>> ex:i1 rdf:type ex:c . >>> >>> >>> Shapes graph >>> >>> se:rdf:type sh:Shape ; >>> sh:targetNode ex:i2 ; >>> sh:class ex:c . >>> >>> Some occurrences of "node" should probably be replaced with "RDF term". >>> >>> >>> >>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>> Nuance Communications >>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 00:23:51 UTC