- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:41:10 -0500
- To: Robert Powers <bobpowers51@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C Public RDF Shapes <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Robert, Thanks for reviewing the text. This issue was very contentious so we had to be very precise in order to get consensus in the WG. Now that the WG agrees on the substance of this solution, the editors have licence to improve the readability of the text. Concerning the use of iff, I believe we do need the implication in both directions in order to precisely define these concepts. We are defining mathematical sets here so we cannot weaken the implication, otherwise the sets could include more elements. -- Arthur On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Robert Powers <bobpowers51@gmail.com> wrote: > In the paragraph in 2.1.2 discussed here [1], there are three "if and only > if" statements. Two of these are when "a SHACL process MUST recognize a > resource X in the shapes graph." I would argue that the iff in these cases > should be demoted to just "if". MUST, being a compulsion on the user, would > be invoked as a consequent but not as an antecedent. Similarly, the third > iff statement could be weakened to a form "..a resource R in the data graph > is said to be an instance of the resource X *when* the data graph > contains.." > > [1] > http://lists.w3..org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0104.html >
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 16:41:40 UTC