Re: on definition and declaration

I disagree that the remaining uses of definition and declaration (and their
variants) are unproblematic.  The first case that I found in the document is
"all the rdfs:subClassOf declarations needed to walk the class hierarchy must
exist in the data graph."  However, there is application notion of declaration
available to make sense of this sentence.  I expect that the intent here is
"triples with predicate rdfs:subClassOf".

The working group needs to appoint someone to go through the document to
ensure that these words are no longer being misused.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/26/2016 10:14 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/09/2016 16:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> "Constraints are defined within a shape"
>>
>> "Defined within" is not defined.
>>
>>
>> "Constraints that declare more than one parameters, such as sh:pattern, are
>> not allowed to be declared more than once in the same constraint."
>>
>> The first two uses of "declare" come from section 6.2.  A core definition is
>> needed.
>>
>> The last use of "declared" is not defined.
> 
> I have reworked some of the related prose
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/698fe4e72d06b79de8f15a39389b9a7954a79b2e
> 
> 
> This does not substitute all usages of "defined" and "declared", but I believe
> the remaining cases are sufficiently intuitive to the average reader.
> 
> Thanks,
> Holger
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> "declare" is used for many different purposes, most of them undefined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
>>
> 
> 

Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 15:05:34 UTC