Re: on value

That's even more mystifying.

The addition is:
The term <em>value</em> is sometimes used in statements such as "every value
of X is..." without referring to a specific subject.
In those cases, the statement applies to any subject that has a value for X.

This sounds like it is the subjects that are to be considered.


If an unrestricted universal meaning is the correct one then wording like

The phrase "Every value of P in graph G ..." means "Every object of a triple
in G with predicate P ..."

is much better.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

On 02/26/2017 10:27 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I have added a clarification for this case:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/abc55fe3380a94f1ae74e3453a904778f36eee6a
> 
> 
> I do believe it was rather redundant though because the definition of "value"
> already implied the existence of a subject.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 27/02/2017 2:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> In several places in the SHACL document there is wording like "Every value
>> of sh:shapesGraph is an IRI" with "value" linking back to the definition of
>> property values and paths.  However, value is defined there on an RDF term
>> and a property, not on a single RDF term.
>>
>> There needs to be a suitable definition of value added to support these
>> uses.
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
> 
>

Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 13:58:24 UTC