Re: on focus nodes

It would be useful to have a diff pointing out the changes.

peter


On 10/11/2016 08:06 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Dear Peter, thank you for your comments
> note that this is an unofficial response that is not necessarily endorsed by
> the WG
> 
> For your information, we updated the definition and use of the term focus node.
> Can you check if this looks good to you now?
> 
> Best,
> Dimitris
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     The notion of focus nodes is poorly defined in the SHACL document.
> 
>     The first mention of focus nodes is:
> 
>     "Focus Node
>     A node in the data graph that is validated against a shape is called a focus
>     node."
> 
>     This indicates that any node that is validated against a shape is a focus
>     node but doesn't say how they are determined.
> 
>     Right after, there is
> 
>     "Target
>     A target relates a shape with its focus nodes."
> 
>     This indicates that the only focus nodes are those that come via targets.
> 
>     Later there is
> 
>     "Shapes define constraints that a set of focus nodes can be validated
>     against. The set of focus nodes for a shape may be defined explicitly in a
>     shape using targets and filters. The focus nodes may also be determined as
>     part of the validation of constraints that include references to shapes
>     using properties such as sh:shape and sh:or."
> 
>     This states that here are two ways of determining the focus nodes of a
>     shape.  Either all the focus nodes come from targets and filters or all
>     the focus nodes are determined during validation.
> 
>     The diagram just after then shows targets selecting focus nodes, counter to
>     having both targets and filters selecting focus nodes.
> 
> 
> 
>     This is another example of loose terminology in the SHACL document.  The
>     entire document needs to be closely examined to ensure that the term focus
>     node is defined clearly and coherently.  This needs to be accompanied by a
>     repeated examination of the document for loose terminology that only
>     terminates when no examples of loose terminology are present.
> 
> 
>     Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>     Nuance Communications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 16:41:15 UTC