Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec]

Here are my comments:

1)
1761  The values of <code>sh:datatype</code> must be IRIs representing 
datatypes, such as <code>xsd:string</code>

If datatype were defined in the terminology section as RDF datatypes, 
then this could be simply said as:

"The values of sh:datatype are <link to terminology>datatypes</link...>"

That would remove "representing" which is problematic, and would define 
datatype, which is essential since it is used in the document.

2)

2945 <code>sh:qualifiedValueShape</code> must be accompanied by a 
<code>sh:qualifiedMinCount</code> or a 
<code>sh:qualifiedMaxCount</code>, or both.

To eliminate "accompanied by", it could be stated as:

"For each sh:qualifiedValueShape there must be either one 
sh:qualifiedMinCount or one sh:qualifiedMaxCount, or one 
sh:qualifiedMinCount and one sh:qualifiedMaxCount."

alternate wording (hard to make this elegant)

"For each sh:qualifiedValueShape there must be either one 
sh:qualifiedMinCount or one sh:qualifiedMaxCount, or one of each."

3)
The statements nearly all use plurals where I could generally use the 
singular, such as:

2597  The values of <code>sh:lessThanOrEquals</code> must be <a>IRIs</a>

This is probably a difference in mental models, but I think of a 
property as singular in a triple with a single object. Perhaps thinking 
of it more as a graph it can be a property with multiple objects. I 
haven't found anything in other RDF standards that would show a usage 
pattern. In any case, it probably matters more that the document be 
consistent.

kc

On 10/17/16 9:07 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191
>
> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> In the currently published draft of the spec, each parameter of the core vocabulary is annotated with a column "Value type" that carries no meaning. Peter also stated that some of these value types are rather unhelpful:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Oct/0059.html
>
> I think we should do a proper job here and make the value types more useful, making SHACL more predictable. The Value types column should be deleted and instead the TEXTUAL DEFINITION of each component should enumerate constraints on these values. Shapes graphs that violate these constraints are invalid.
>
> I have made these changes to the draft and would like the WG to review them:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02
>
> My proposal is to approve these changes.
>
>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 16:41:57 UTC