Re: parameter descriptions for constraint components

As the value type information is no longer there there are no longer any cases
where the information there is incorrect.  However, the list parameters are
not uniformly described - see sh:in vs sh:languageIn.
As well, in some cases an example is given but in most there is no example.
So there is still variability in wording.

I think that it is up to the working group to put in the effort to check the
parameter descriptions to see if there are any problems.

peter


On 10/17/2016 09:10 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Thanks, Peter. I have generalized your comment into
> 
>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191
> 
> which includes a link to a change set
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02
> 
> 
> The WG would appreciate if you could check for any errors in these updated
> definitions.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 18/10/2016 11:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Although it appears that Value Type in constraint component parameter
>> descriptions doesn't really mean or do anything, it probably should have
>> reasonable types.  As well, the summary should be used consistently throughout.
>>
>> I have found a few places where this is not done correctly.
>>
>> For example, sh:datatype has value type rdfs:resource, indicating that 7 is
>> acceptable as an sh:datatype value.
>>
>> As far as different wording goes, lists are described in several ways
>>
>> Property     Value Type     Summary
>> sh:languageIn     rdf:List     An RDF list of language ranges (members must
>> have
>> datatype xsd:string)
>>
>> Property     Value Type     Summary
>> sh:and     rdf:List (members: sh:Shape)     RDF list of shapes to validate
>> the value
>> nodes against
>>
>> All the constraint parameter descriptions should be checked to ensure that
>> they use consistent language and all make sense.
>>
>>
>> This is another case of loose terminology in the SHACL document.
>>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 07:48:57 UTC