Re: Deep copy

Your reasoning is incorrect.

It appears that what you mean by "deep copy" is somewhat related to its
meaning in LISP.  The meaning of "deep copy" that most readers will know of is
is meaning in current object-oriented languages, where all objects reachable
by inter-object links are copied.  This would end up copying the entire
portion of the RDF graph reachable from the head list node, which is not what
is desired here.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 09/22/2016 10:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 23/09/2016 11:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Deep copy
>>>
>>> "a deep copy of sh:path as its sh:path" What is "deep copy" in this
>> context?
>>>      Comment (HK): I have attempted to clarify this here:
>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d3f8f858f95b010d1f2a0e4681da203bcbfbc217
>>
>>>      Comment (kc): Unless "deep copy" has some pre-defined meaning that I
>> am unaware of, I would suggest dropping it and saying: The value of sh:path
>> of each validation result must copy all triples that are required by the <a
>> href="#path-syntax">SHACL well-formed path syntax rules</a>from the
>> <a>shapes graph</a> into the graph containing the validation results.
>>>      Comment (HK): The first google match of "deep copy" is pretty close to
>> what I wanted to express, so I believe the term should be familiar to many
>> people and may be helpful for implementers. Also I had surrounded the term
>> with "...". Anyway, I have no strong opinion and let others decide.
>>
>> The extra wording is helpful.  However, "deep copy" in
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_copying#Deep_copy is different.  Either
>> drop "deep copy" or point to an appropriate definition.
> 
> Almost every English word is somehow overloaded with multiple meanings. I
> believe your linked deep copy is quite appropriate for what I am trying to
> express. If anyone has a suggestion on how to explain this better, please
> provide a complete replacement of the sentence - just dropping the term does
> not work.
> 
> Thanks,
> Holger
>

Received on Friday, 23 September 2016 17:36:48 UTC