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

Re: incoherent descriptions of property pair constraint components

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:56:11 +1000
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <4c76e957-7b0b-2a64-f02a-a2222bf1fd80@topquadrant.com>
If I understand Peter's comment correctly (which is not always easy), he 
is no longer concerned about this particular edit but about whether the 
WG is taking enough care - in general.

Holger


On 23/11/2016 10:59, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Some of this can be mitigated by using less complex sentences, but 
> more of them, such as:
>
> sh:equals is used to compare the value nodes of two predicates to 
> determine if they are equal. These predicates have the focus node as 
> their subject. One predicate is the set of values of sh:predicate, the 
> other predicate is the set of values of sh:equals.
>
> Also, "to verify" is problematic. It should be stated as a comparison 
> with an outcome.
>
> It would be good to have a specific term to indicate the 
> "sh:predicate" predicate and the "sh:{comparison}" predicate that can 
> be used for all four cases. Probably calling them "first" and "second" 
> is less than ideal, but they *are* described as "pairs" and more all 
> except sh:equals there is a definite order, right?
>
> kc
>
>
>
> On 11/22/16 3:31 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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 Wednesday, 23 November 2016 01:56:47 UTC

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