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

Re: incoherent descriptions of property pair constraint components

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:08:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CACU-ze+tZA0ab4bpwYB94cQfzas+_3HY3Z2_4neOEynYSMj65A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "<public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Yes, simplifying sentences is always good.

<These predicates have the focus node as their subject. >

Is it OK to phrase it like this without mentioning a triple? I believe we
can say "values of a predicate" because value nodes have been defined.  Can
we also say "subject of a predicate"?

<One predicate is the set of values of sh:predicate, the other predicate is
the set of values of sh:equals.>

Is this correct? I thought that one could specify only one property using
sh:predicate and only one property using sh:equals. Then, their values are
compared. Can multiple be specified?

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 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/d721ec279674bb5eb2
>>> 7020585899ed16629ce32e
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 12:08:39 UTC

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