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

That's better.  Even better would be to describe more of the context.

peter

On 02/07/2017 09:25 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 17:17:06 UTC