Re: on the closing of ISSUE-163

Peter, I did miss the "constrains" in the property pair section, so I 
will try to come up with a different wording for that and will propose 
it. The usage in 4.7.2 is, IMO, in accordance with English language 
usage, and I think is appropriate here.

kc

On 9/27/16 9:16 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's Draft 27
> September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl
>
> "sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of values of both
> properties at a given focus node must be equal."
>
> This contradicts the claim in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Sep/0046.html
> that ``constraint is still used, but no more "constrain" or "constraining". So
> it's a thing, but not a verb.''
>
> There is a total of six uses of "constrains" in the document.
>
>
> The working group appears to have closed ISSUE-163 based on incorrect information.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 13:52:51 UTC