Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02

Peter,

All 4 uses of the words “assumed to be” are currently in the non normative (informative) sections of the spec. The intention of the text that uses the words is to informally explain the selection of targets and focus nodes.

Is replacing “assumed to be” with “will be” as in (2.1.3.1):

The variable targetNode will be pre-bound <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#pre-binding> to the given value of sh:targetNode. All bindings <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-binding> of the variable this from the solution <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-solution> become focus nodes.

addresses your concern?

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> * It is unclear what is meant by:  "The variable $targetNode is assumed to
>>>  be pre-bound to the given value of sh:targetNode."  Is this something that
>>>  SHACL implementations have to do?  There are several occurences of this
>>>  kind of wording.
>> RESPONSE: Please clarify the issue. What is unclear?
> 
> It is unclear as to what force comes from the use of "assumed".  Does the
> "assume" mean that "because implementation have to pre-bind certain
> variables therefore it is the case that ..."  or just "if it happens that
> ..."?  There were a couple of messages that included comments on this
> problem.  The last one was from me, stating that I did not accept the
> rationale given for keeping the word.  The next step should be a respose
> from the working group indicating whether the wording will be kept or
> modified.
>