- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:31:44 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
This is non-responsive to the main point of my message. The working group is not exercising adequate care to ensure that the SHACL document makes sense. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 11/22/2016 03:23 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out, I have tried to address this here: > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d721ec279674bb5eb27020585899ed16629ce32e > > > Holger > > > On 23/11/2016 5:15, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> "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." >> >> This does not make any sense. There is similar wording for other property >> pair constraint components. >> >> There are also wording problems in this section including: >> >> "not exist as value" -> "not exist as a value" >> >> The definition blocks use different wording for the same notions. >> >> >> Someone in the working group really needs to take a close look at the entire >> document to systematically check for problems of this sort. >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 23:32:17 UTC