W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > November 2016

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-155

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:03:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CACU-ze+i+dMNdRgwjyr9rRMGVpJO5qYXfYtJi9h6WhTMtW-sRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Dimitris,

The difference between what is in the document now with what I proposed is
that the words "objects of triples" are missing e.g.,

"sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is equal to the
set of nodes that have the focus node as subject and the value of sh:equals
as
predicate."

where I proposed "the set of nodes that are objects of triples with the
focus node as subject and the value of sh:equals as
predicate."

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi Irene,
>
> We independently came up with the exact same definition for sh:equals and
> I already adjusted all related definition in 4.6.
> I also used your suggestion for the improvement of the value node
> definition.
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I propose the following language:
>>
>> sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is equal to
>> the set of nodes that are objects of triples with the focus node as
>> subject and the value of sh:equals as predicate.
>>
>>
>> My proposal is based on the definition of a value node as:
>>
>> For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the
>> objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the given
>> property as predicate.
>>
>>
>> I think this definition may need to be made clearer as in:
>>
>> For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the
>> objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the
>> sh:predicate value as predicate.
>>
>>
>> If this change reads OK, then a similar language needs to be propagated to
>> all constraints in section 4.6.
>>
>> Irene
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/28/16, 12:10 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>From the description of ISSUE-155:
>> >
>> >"[Property pair constraints] talk about an (ordered) pair of properties
>> >but do
>> >not take an (ordered) pair of properties as arguments."
>> >
>> >>From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's
>> >>Draft 27
>> >September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl
>> >
>> >"sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of values of
>> >both
>> >properties at a given focus node must be equal."
>> >
>> >This sentence is even more incorrect now than it was when the issue was
>> >raised.
>> >
>> >
>> >It thus appears that work has not been done that has solved this issue
>> and
>> >that the working group has not adequately investigated the current
>> >situation
>> >before closing ISSUE-155.
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> >Nuance Communications
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
> Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
> http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 20:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:46 UTC