Re: shapes-ISSUE-197 (Defined ): "Defined" and "declared" used in multiple ways, and not defined [SHACL Spec]

I would use "specified" for the second meaning of "defined". I think
"declared" would work as well. "Described" - may be, but would not be my
first choice.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> shapes-ISSUE-197 (Defined ): "Defined" and "declared" used in multiple
> ways, and not defined [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/197
>
> Raised by: Karen Coyle
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> >From Peter's email [1]:
>
> "Constraints are defined within a shape"
>
> "Defined within" is not defined.
>
> "Constraints that declare more than one parameters, such as sh:pattern, are
> not allowed to be declared more than once in the same constraint."
>
> The first two uses of "declare" come from section 6.2.  A core definition
> is
> needed.
>
> The last use of "declared" is not defined.
>
> "declare" is used for many different purposes, most of them undefined.
>
> ******* More analysis *******
> The use of defined in its normal sense of "having a definition" is ok.
> Example:
>
> "The parameter name is defined as the local name of the value of
> sh:predicate."
>
> The use of defined to mean something like "takes as a value" or "is coded
> as" is less clear:
>
> "Property constraints are defined in a shape with the property
> sh:property."
> "Based on the parameter IRIs on the tables, pre-bound variables are
> defined using the parameter names."
>
> In some cases, the term "declare" is used in the same way as the second
> meaning of define:
> " Constraint components declare one or more parameter properties and
> validation instructions (such as those implemented as SPARQL queries) that
> can be used to perform the validation for the given focus node and
> parameter values."
>
> Suggest:
> - use "defined" for "is given a definition or meaning in this or other
> texts
> - do not use "declare"
> - find a more precise term for the second meaning of "defined" that
> specifically addresses the creation of properties and values, regardless of
> how "definitional" they are.
>
> (Note how this is used in the SKOS document: "Therefore, while SKOS can be
> used to describe a concept scheme, SKOS does not provide any mechanism to
> completely define a concept scheme." Could "describe" be used for this
> second meaning of "define"? That still seems imprecise for the specific
> cases in SHACL.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>