Re: ISSUE-188: Switched to "conforms"

On 20/11/2016 3:04, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Holger, I think it will be important for the group to review the 
> remove of filter separately, so I'm not commenting on that here. In 
> general, the changes to conforms are ok, but there are related changes 
> that I'm not totally in agreement with.
>
> Comments:
>
> -line 630 "sh:predicate ex:ssn ;     # Constrains the values of the 
> ex:ssn property"
> -- I don't like the "Constrains" here, and this seems to be the only 
> usage of it. Could the comment be removed for now? I can't think of a 
> better way to say it.

Changed to the following for now. I believe there is value in having 
some comment there:

# This constraint is about the values of the ex:ssn property

>
> -Line 1366 "Validation is the process of determining whether a <a>data 
> graph</a>, or <a>nodes</a> in the <a>data graph</a>, conform to a 
> <a>shapes graph</a> or specific shapes in a shapes graph."
> -- The before of this statement didn't talk about "specific shapes in 
> a shapes graph" and I don't know why this is here now. What is a 
> "specific shape"?

I have added this sub-sentence to cover the case in which a node is 
validated against a given shape only, not the complete graph. This is 
for example the targetless validation promoted by the ShEx camp.

> And what is a "shapes graph"? 

This term is well-defined.

> The text following the example in 1.4 refers to the SHACL code example 
> as a "shape", yet it is introduced (in the sentence above the example) 
> as a "shapes graph." Then line 1381 refers to "each shape in the 
> shapes graph." Every shape is itself a graph so the difference between 
> "shape" and "shapes graph" isn't clear. Is there a concept of a set of 
> shapes that are then a shapes graph? If so, is that necessary?

I continue to believe you have a different definition of "graph" than 
what I have. For me (and RDF) a graph is a set of triples. A shape is 
*not* a graph.

>
> - There is also usage (line 2822) of "given shape." I don't know what 
> makes a shape "given" so I probably should just say "the shape." (A 
> couple of places)

Here the intention was to state that it was the value "given" by the 
property sh:shape. I could switch to " conform to a specified shape." Is 
this any better, or how else? "the shape" is not sufficiently precise.

>
> - line 2888
> "<td><code>sh:qualifiedMinCount</code></td>"
> <td>The minimum number of value nodes that can conform to the shape.
> -- Isn't this the minimum number that MUST conform to the shape to be 
> true? It is setting an actual minimum, is it not? (possibly also used 
> in other places)

Yes, must is better for minCount although I left the can for maxCount 
(if that's OK?).

>
> -Line 4000
> "ASK queries return <code>true</code> for value nodes that conform to 
> the constraint, while SELECT queries return those value nodes that do 
> not conform."
> -- Did you mean to say that SELECT returns the nodes that do NOT 
> conform? I'm questioning the NOT there.

I think this is currently correct. It is indeed the fact that SELECT 
returns the nodes that do not conform.

Holger


>
> kc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/16/16 5:54 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Karen, I have switched the document to use the term "conforms" for the
>> outcome of the validation process:
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/c3f74b34f946e9c04207d86b45e7757c48a37605 
>>
>>
>>
>> Not too many changes were needed and the commit above also includes
>> dropping sh:filterShape.
>>
>> If you have a minute, maybe you could double-check where I didn't get it
>> right?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 19 November 2016 23:22:56 UTC