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

Re: incoherent descriptions of property pair constraint components

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
Message-ID: <ca46716c-c9b5-0e0d-3b55-ea7307d93e28@gmail.com>
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

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