Re: on focus nodes

On 10/11/2016 10:43 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> There is no single diff for that change but you can look here
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/gh-pages@%7B10-03-2016%7D...gh-pages
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     So now focus nodes are mentioned (in the Constraint and Constraint Component
>     terminology sections and in Section 1.4) well before there is
>     any statement of what a focus node is.  So, no, I don't think that this
>     looks good to me.
> 
> 
> We are in the process of moving most of the terminology sections on the main
> sections so the reference there will be removed shortly
> Despite that, we cannot remove all forward references in the spec, e.g.
> validation is defined in section 3 and mentioned before

I don't have access to plans for the document, so I can only look at its
current state.  Having me try to figure out whether some bit of the current
state is going to be changed in the future is a waste of my time.  I suggest
not asking for my comments when there are relevant changes that remain to be
done unless there is some specific wording that is being pointed out.

>     There is still also the problem that Section 2 appears to state that there
>     are four separate ways to determine the set of focus nodes of a shape.
> 
> 
> Is this incorrect or is there another problem here?

Either or both.

The wording indicates that the set of focus nodes of a shape can be determined
by targets and filters.  This would then determine the set of focus nodes and
the other possibilities could not then change the set of focus nodes.
Similarly for the other three ways of determining the set of focus nodes of a
shape.

I don't think that this is the right way for SHACL to work (and I don't think
that this is the way that SHACL used to work), but I don't know whether this
is the way that the working group intends SHACL to work.

I expect that SHACL hasn't changed and that this is yet another example of
poor definitions in the SHACL document.

>  
> Thanks,
> Dimitris

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 18:10:17 UTC